Editorial Comment by John Sackton – (Seafood News) July 8, 2009 – The recent developments in the New England Fishing industry have struck a nerve in Gloucester, and the entire community is mobilizing to respond.
Gloucester, long one of the centers of the New England Fishing industry along with New Bedford, has faced stepped up enforcement, more reductions in days at sea and fishing time, the threatened temporary closure of the fish auction for violations, and now a wholesale change in fisheries management to a system of catch shares.
It is no wonder the community feels under siege. But the industry faces a stark choice, and it is time to put forward a positive vision of the future the industry wants.
Most of the outrage over this situation has been directed at the wrong targets. The Gloucester Times is incensed that NOAA chief Lubchenco has a prior association with the Pew Foundation, mentioning it in every story they write.
They have gone on to suggest that the money being spent by environmentalists is to support the oil industry, since the original funding for the Pew foundation came from an oil company. Yet they never suggest that because Gloucester got a large cash payment for an offshore natural gas terminal as part of $10 million spent in Gloucester by a Texas energy giant, that their own views are compromised by the oil industry.
They have also seized on a statement from one of the Environmental Defense funds executives touting the investment potential (up to 400% return) in buying up quota shares.
Anyone who believes this should have invested in Bear Sterns. It is nonsense. Actual markets for quota shares in Alaska trade at five to seven times the per lb. value of the catch, well within the normal range of returns for a large number of investments.
So while Gloucester is tilting at windmills, such as Pew and Environmental Defense and Lubchenco’s past associations, the real issues of catch shares are not even on the radar.
The issue is whether catch shares end up concentrating the fishery in a few corporate hands so that crews become employees, as has happened in the offshore clam fishery, or if catch shares are implemented in a way that keeps fishing vessels in local communities, provides for orderly retirement and income for boat owners, and provides an avenue for new entrants, i.e. crew, to become captains and run and own their own vessels.
One of the key tests for this is whether there are owner-on-board requirements for the new catch shares. Owner-on-board requirements make it impossible for outside investors to become more than minority partners in the various fishing enterprises. It certainly is one way to protect local communities. Owner on board requirements also force environmental groups to partner with fishermen, not dictate to them.
Yet there is a downside, which is for those who are currently leasing and want to sell their shares, the owner on board requirement reduces their value because there is a more limited universe of buyers. This should not be an issue if the goal is to retain the present decentralized nature of the fishery.
Another important consideration in catch shares is the percent of total quota that can be held by any single company or individual. It is true that some New England companies see catch shares as a bonanza, because they will be in a position to buy up significant amounts and control a portion of the total catch. Once this happens, catch shares are aggregated on to a few boats, drastically reducing the size of the fleet. In the Alaska crab fishery, the fleet went from around 280 vessels to 80 operating vessels virtually overnight.
If Gloucester is concerned about concentration, they should advocate for a strict limit in both species quota and total quota to be held or used by any individual share holder or sector.
The catch share system is not a straight jacket, but rather a different way of managing fisheries. The environmental community is rapidly learning to navigate in this new environment, while Gloucester continues to fight old battles.
Hopefully, someone will stand up and point out that there are ways to achieve a healthy fishery in the community by insisting on certain rights under catch shares – but unfortunately it is more likely we will continue to hear more of the vilification of NMFS, the government, environmentalists and Pew, without anyone putting forward a positive vision of how to retain a healthy fishery in Gloucester in the face of changing times.
Given the speed of the changes going on in New England, not putting forward a positive vision could be fatal. Gloucester is fighting the last war. History has not been kind to those who make this mistake.