7 October 2002

An Open Letter to Members of the West Coast Congressional Delegation
Regarding Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs)

Dear Senators and Members of the House:

The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) represents working fishing men and women in the West Coast commercial fishing fleet. It is the West Coast’s largest commercial fishing organization and through its member organizations consists of individuals engaged in a number of different fisheries utilizing many different gear types from troll to trawl, gillnet, purse and Scottish seine, vertical hook-and-line, longline and traps.

On behalf of the membership in PCFFA, I respectfully ask that you oppose any legislation in the closing days of this Congress that would allow the implementation of individual fishing quotas or “IFQs” without strong national standards for such systems in place. As you know, the current moratorium on new IFQ programs expired on 30 September, and Congress must now decide whether to: 1) extend the moratorium; 2) allow the moratorium to expire, taking no action; or 3) develop a set of standards for the implementation of IFQs (this is what the National Marine Fisheries Service was to do when the moratorium was put in place in 1996 but, to date, has failed to do). Below I have provided a brief discussion on a) why the issue is important, b) why letting the moratorium expire without strong standards in place is a mistake, c) why there is no need to rush into IFQ programs, and d) what standards are absolutely essential (p.4).

Why is this issue so important? IFQs, without strong national standards, could turn many of our nation’s fisheries and fishing communities upside down with much of the resource ending up owned or controlled by a few entities and fishermen ending up as sharecroppers. Individual Fishing Quotas are a management tool that grant a percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) in a fishery to an individual or entity creating, depending on how they are drafted, a quasi-property right or actual property right to what have been (fish) a public trust resource. IFQs may work well in certain fisheries, if they are carefully crafted; potentially – again if drafted with care – they can eliminate the “race for fish.” This may help to create stability in a fishery, increasing safety-at-sea, product quality and/or value, and, in some instances, promote conservation.

However, if IFQs are not carefully crafted, as has been the case with numerous IFQ programs around the world: (1) individuals who have participated in and depend on a fishery can be eliminated in an initial allocation, (2) the fishery can end up in the hands of a few entities – creating a monopolistic situation, (3) the allocation of quota can result in windfall profits for a few while making it very expensive for young fishing men and women to enter the fishery, if at all; and (4) quotas can end up in the hands of entities not directly involved in the catching and landing of fish, such as banks or fish processors, thereby making sharecroppers out of fishing men and women. At risk thus, are the livelihoods of fishing men and women, our fishing communities and the public’s stake in its fishery resources.

Why strong national standards are needed for IFQs. Strong and explicit language is needed to ensure the problems that have arisen under so many other IFQ programs are not repeated. Congress became concerned with the direction IFQ programs were taking, and the lack of national policy guidance, when it passed a moratorium in 1996. The National Marine Fisheries Service was directed to develop standards. It did not. Now the question is whether to go back to the pre-1996 days allowing IFQs with no standards, extending the moratorium, or going ahead with either weak or strong national standards.

Some have argued that there is adequate language in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to protect fishing men and women in the implementation of any IFQ system. As a lawyer who has worked on various reauthorizations of Magnuson throughout the years, I can tell you there are no such safeguards in Magnuson. Indeed, the reason the regional councils and NMFS are constantly in court is that they cannot even follow the basic law requiring them to prevent overfishing, minimize bycatch and protect fish habitat. If they cannot even follow explicit direction from the Congress, how can they be trusted to follow vague or implicit language that some IFQ advocates claim already exists in the law?

Others have argued that the Regional Council’s should have the discretion to develop IFQ systems around the fisheries they manage. The problem with this is that these are the very same Regional Councils’ whose management, along with a complicit National Marine Fisheries Service, has led to the very disasters we’re now trying to address. The Pacific Council, for example, while having no compunction about imposing extremely restrictive regulations on ocean salmon fishing, in order to increase the number of spawners back to the rivers, was silent for nearly two decades about the destruction of the watersheds the salmon were supposed to spawn in. While the Pacific Council has imposed harsh regulations on the salmon fishery of California’s north coast and Oregon’s south coast to get more spawners to the Klamath River, it has been deafeningly silent this year about the record kill of returning spawners to the Klamath River caused by low flows and high water temperatures. At the same time the Pacific Council’s management of groundfish - specifically its failure to call for comprehensive and frequent stock assessments necessary to manage the fishery and its allowing the overfishing of species within the groundfish complex - has led to the current groundfish collapse. Moreover, the Pacific Council’s bias in favor of large trawl and processor interests raises questions of whether it can fairly develop an IFQ program without strong national standards.

The participants in a fishery need to have a say in whether or not their fishery will be under an ITQ and what that system will look like. Participants need to know that the allocation of quota shares will be fair and equitable, not simply doled out to the Regional Council “families” or NMFS’ favorite fisheries or fishermen. Participants need to know that if a program goes horribly wrong, that there will be some review, some opportunity to get out of a failed experiment. Those who participate in the catch and landing of fish need to know they will be able to own quota shares and not simply be working for some shore-based entity in what amounts to a sharecropper relationship. The public needs to know that these programs will not simply be a grant of public resource to profit private entities. The public needs to know that IFQ programs will make fishing safer, and/or improve the quality/value of the product, and/or promote fish conservation. That is why strong standards are needed. Unfortunately, the current standards being considered in the Senate and House are inadequate and need considerable strengthening.

What is the rush? IFQ proponents, or those proposing no standards or weak standards anyway, are saying that many fisheries need IFQs now. And, if there is an extension of the moratorium, they want to be exempted. On the west coast, some of these proponents are asking that the Pacific Fishery Management Council be exempted from any extended moratorium. As one who has been involved either personally or organizationally with the Pacific Council since 1976 and who has members in virtually all the fisheries managed by that regional body, my question is what is the sudden rush? An IFQ system will not create one more bocaccio – in other words it won’t help rebuild groundfish stocks. An IFQ system will not improve flows to the Klamath River, nor help salmon pass the Snake River dams. An IFQ system won’t fund the research needed for squid and other coastal pelagic species so they can be better managed. An IFQ system will not help swordfish fishermen in the highly migratory fishery develop the gear to completely avoid sea turtles.

In the Pacific groundfish fishery, the critical elements for rebuilding that fishery consist of: a) a buyback program to reduce the number of vessels/permits; b) additional research, including cooperative research, for a better understanding of the exact status of many stocks (e.g., bocaccio surveys south of Point Conception); and c) development of more selective fishing gear (e.g., full implementation of experimental gear permit programs). Indeed, given the questions of fishermen about the adequacy of the current stock surveys and the sightings of large bodies of bocaccio and other rockfish, implementation now of an IFQ program in the groundfish fishery, without a complete and full survey of the groundfish stocks, could result in a massive giveaway of the resource to a few of the larger trawlers and longliners at the expense of those who only fished the shelf or inshore waters. Let’s be clear no harm will come to the fish, nor greater harm to the fishery, if the moratorium is extended another six months or a year to make sure the right standards are in place for IFQ systems.

What standards are essential? The following are the essential standards, in order of priority, that are essential for the protection of the fish, the fishing communities and fishing men and women on the West Coast:

1.REFERENDUM. A referendum vote must be held for the permit holders (if applicable) and current participants in the catching and landing of fish in any fishery for which an ITQ is proposed to vote, first, on whether to proceed with development of an IFQ program and then vote a second time to approve any such program. Approval should require a super majority or a two-thirds vote in favor.

2. FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF QUOTA SHARES. Quota shares should be allocated in a fair manner to all of those persons currently participating in the catching and landing of fish in a fishery and, if applicable, current permit holders, for which an IFQ is proposed. Since the quota is to be divided into shares there is no reason to arbitrarily eliminate small producers; rather, they should have the opportunity to buy additional share to make their fishery economically viable or have the right to sell out. No Regional Council should have the right to arbitrarily determine whom among current participants in a fishery will or will not be assigned a quota.

3. PREFERENCE FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN THE CATCH AND LANDING OF FISH. Preference for quota shares in any initial allocation and any transfers thereafter should be for those individuals engaged aboard a vessel in the catching and landing of the fish. The reason for this is simple, if conservation is to be promoted, or safety-at-sea improved, those persons on board the fishing vessel should own the quota shares not a third party ashore, such as a processor or bank, removed from the at-sea operation of catching and landing of fish. If quota shares end up in the hands of shoreside interests, fishing men and women are relegated to a sharecropper status.

4. STRICT LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF QUOTA HELD. Congress needs to define what constitutes an excessive quota share, and then specify caps on how much quota in a fishery any one individual may own or otherwise control. This is essential to prevent monopolization of the fishery by a few entities, such as what happened in New Zealand.

5. TIME LIMIT. A time limit of 5 (a typical time for leasing of Federal property) to 7 years should be imposed on any IFQ program. After that, the program should be independently reviewed for its effectiveness and, depending on the findings, either scrapped or renewed. The investment of those who participate in good faith in a fishery should be protected by assuring that if they comply with or exceed conservation or other standards their right to continue participating in the fishery, subject to resource availability, will be protected either through renewal of their IFQ quota or any system subsequently replacing an IFQ program.

6. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. IFQs are touted by proponents as a better means of managing and conserving fisheries, improving safety-at-sea, etc. If Congress is to allow a granting of a quasi-property right or actual property right to the fishery through IFQs, then the public ought to demand that the benefits promised for these fisheries are achieved. Performance standards should be required for each IFQ system for fostering conservation and improving safety-at-sea.

7. SELF-SUPPORTING. Finally, each IFQ system should fully bear the costs of implementing, managing and enforcing the program. Taxpayers, or other fishery programs, or non-participating fishing men and women should not be required to underwrite the costs of implementing any IFQ program.

In the closing days of this Congress, if it is not possible to develop a set of national standards for IFQ systems, then the moratorium should be extended so the next Congress, perhaps without the rush of other business, can debate and develop the standards necessary for the nation if it is to permit IFQs for our country’s fisheries. If you, or staff, have any questions, please call our office immediately, (415) 561-5080. Thank you.

Sincerely,

W.F. “Zeke” Grader, Jr.
Executive Director