Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News
Archive
There it was, above the fold in a newspaper one morning this past month: record federal deficit expected this year and an even larger one next year. The occupation of Iraq was costing double the original estimate and is now pegged at $4 billion per month with the prospect of American troops being there another 5 years. In a matter of three short years the federal government had gone from a huge budget surplus to a record deficit. With budget hawks becoming restive, the message is clear: there will be fewer federal dollars available in the foreseeable future – for social programs, for education and for the management of fisheries.
At a time when many of the nation’s fisheries are in crisis, either because of stock declines (real or imagined), or concerns over the impacts of certain types of fishing gear, or from bad markets, this news could not have come at a worse time. Foremost among the unmet funding needs is for better fisheries research and stock assessments.
While the Department of Agriculture is throwing caution to the wind pushing genetically modified seeds and crops around the globe, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) appears equally reckless by actively promoting open ocean aquaculture, fisheries will be facing increasing limitations based on the precautionary approach for fishing. Conservation groups want it, the United Nation’s Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) is advocating it, even NMFS is giving it some consideration. Indeed, many fishing groups believe some variation of the precautionary principle is necessary, since it means exercising proper precautions to prevent damaging or overfishing stocks. However, without good information about fish stocks, fishing could come to a near standstill and that’s the rub. Informed management information comes from research (such as stock assessments) and this research requires federal funding.
So there you have the danger. We now have a nation suffering record deficits and an economy in recession. Federal dollars will be increasingly scarce. Yet federal dollars fund most of the research our fisheries management process depends on. Without the information derived from research and environmental monitoring, fishery management must inevitably become extremely conservative, plummeting the nation’s fishing industry into an even deeper depression then it’s in already.
One answer would be to simply throw out the precautionary approach and fish like there’s no tomorrow. The problem with this approach is that politically it would never fly, because it would mean more or less abandoning stewardship and sustainability as a guiding management principle. The public, and most politicians, believe the oceans and our fisheries are in trouble. Whether that’s so and to what extent is the subject of another debate, but suffice it to say that’s the belief, and it’s going to be hard to convince folks otherwise. The problem with realistically assessing fisheries problems is that the debate is complicated by the fact that all fisheries have different environmental and ecosystem characteristics. Additionally, there are different management systems, often utilizing information that is inconsistent in type and quality from one region to another. Also, one consistent problem is that all management is hampered by inadequate data and there are often major data gaps.
Finally, to the extent these problems are real (and some of them apparently are), it would also be pretty stupid indeed for any of us to go on a fishing binge today with no thought about the future, particularly since we have already seen how terribly hard a fisheries collapse hits our own people.
Frankly, salmon fishermen must be able to demonstrate they are fishing responsibly when they are in the legislatures and courts arguing for better fish flows or protection of riverine habitats. Most squid fishermen would not be willing to fish wide open after they fought hard to get their fishery regulated just to prevent a future collapse. If the fishing industry could fish unfettered of regulations, it would have a hard time convincing its consumers their fishing was sustainable – all fish could end up on the “red list” of the various seafood buyer’s guides. So throwing out some reasonable version of the precautionary approach would be a serious mistake. If we cannot regulate ourselves, we will be regulated nonetheless -- by agencies, by the markets and by eventual fisheries collapses.
TYPES OF INFORMATION NEEDED
So what do we need to do to develop the information necessary to fish responsibly, to have sustainable fisheries? We are not, after all, interested in research for the sake of research but for very practical purposes. What types of information do we most need so informed fisheries management decisions can be made?
Stock Assessments. Obviously, frequent and complete stock assessments are essential. This need should be patently obvious to our groundfish fishermen, who are feeling the brunt of what happens when stock assessments are done only tri-annually, rather than annually, and when they do not include the complete range of key species, such as bocaccio. Good ocean coverage both in time and geographically is a necessity for accurate stock assessments. The last thing we need is any more last-minute nasty surprises of the kind that result in more emergency closures.
Life History. Beyond knowing how much fish of a particular stock is out there – the size of the biomass – it helps if we know a little bit more about the fish, such as their age, when and how often they spawn, the environmental conditions required for spawning, where they are found, what they feed on, their habitats, etc. So in addition to stock assessments, basic information on life histories and the environment is also needed.
Gathering information on stock sizes and life histories lends itself, in most instances, to the opportunity for fishermen and scientists to work together. Not all fishery research requires specialized research vessels or PhD’s. Costs can be minimized by utilizing fishermen and their vessels in research activities in collaboration with scientists. Not only can costs be contained by utilizing existing fishing craft and the knowledge of working fishermen, but combining the experience of fishermen with the training of scientists can greatly improve the quality and amount of the data being gathered.
Fortunately there is a growing amount of research that is being done cooperatively with both fishermen and scientists. The U.S. Northeast Coast provides good examples of the type of research that can be done efficiently and effectively by utilizing the strengths of both of these communities. Through government sponsored programs, the Northeast fishing community has access to several million dollars of funding for cooperative research each year. Funding is distributed through NOAA fisheries, grant programs and a multi-university collaborative research group organized by a stakeholder advisory group to set research priorities and distribute funds for research. These programs have funded hundreds of cooperative research projects dealing with bycatch reduction, life history of stocks, environmental and habitat measures, monitoring the effects of closed areas, outreach and education. These programs can be accessed online at www.FishResearch.org and www.northeastconsortium.org.
There have also been some recent developments that will better facilitate these types of comprehensive research programs here on the West Coast as well. There have been cooperative research programs on the West Coast for years dealing with stock assessments, tagging studies to discover life histories and habitat requirements of salmon, tuna, and other species, and bycatch reduction gear studies, to name but a few. What we in the west have lacked is large amounts of federal money to develop programs where fishermen can design and implement their own research programs.
However, with the unveiling of www.FishResearchWest.org in June of 2003, one new tool to help meet this goal has been created. Now fishermen can research funding opportunities in one location, search for interested scientists to collaborate with on a project, enroll in a fishermen’s database that scientists can search, and be able eventually to learn how to write effective grant proposals. Other optimistic news is that for 2003, NOAA Fisheries has designated cooperative research monies for the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to give such grants to fishermen and scientists. Four projects have so far been funded, including groundfish trapping studies and bycatch reduction research in the ridgeback prawn fishery. These projects can be viewed at www.psmfc.org.
These programs are obviously just first steps toward helping us develop a comprehensive, cooperative research program that has fishermen involved at every level of the planning and decision making process, and that can even improve upon the model already working on the East Coast.
In addition to the above two types of research, there is also a need to expand upon these traditional activities to incorporate at least two other forms of directed research, coupled with the development of a resource information system to put the data into a form that can be easily used as well as easily updated as new information becomes available, and that is transparent and easily accessible.
Genetics. The development of genetic information and the application of these data has proven invaluable in designing captive broodstock programs for the recovery of ESA-listed salmon stocks. Development of genetic markers and research in population genetics for all fish stocks could be critical in the future for purposes of both recovery and management of many other species.
Among other things, the development of genetic identification for various fish stocks would make it possible to quickly determine where a fish is from, its family and other important information without even killing the fish. For example, it may be possible to catch a rockfish, take a small tissue sample, release the fish (with or without taking length and weight measurements) and even return that fish to the water. The tissue sample, once submitted to a laboratory, could be genetically analyzed within 48 hours or less (utilizing current technology), thus providing timely information on which to make management decisions. Environmental information can also be derived from tissue sampling. For example, it is now possible to reconstruct feeding histories and correlations to past ocean productivity, through chemical analysis alone.
Coastal Observation Systems. Finally, the development of a system for integrated ocean observation is needed. This involves the placing of shore-based and ocean instruments gathering physical and biological information including on currents, water temperature, upwellings and other physical characteristics. This sort of information is critical in helping us understand the various factors affecting fish populations at any given time. From such studies we know, for example, that the current cold water conditions along the Pacific Coast and the upwellings they produce have greatly benefited ocean productivity, increasing the abundance of krill for whales and everything in between, including squid, sardines, salmon, and even juvenile bocaccio.
Information from coastal observation systems can also reduce uncertainty in fisheries management by defining likely long and short term ocean variability, identifying sources and sinks of marine pollution, and providing a basis to assess total ocean carrying capacity. This approach reduces the uncertainty resulting from much larger processes – like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – that we now know drive long-term ocean productivity over large areas of the Pacific and impact everything from coho and chinook migration to coastal rainfall and water resources.
Research around fish genetic identification and coastal observation systems both lend themselves to collaboration between scientists and fishermen, even if only simply utilizing fishermen in collecting tissue samples or deploying and maintaining these instruments.
Gear Development and New Fisheries. Finally there is great need for research to foster the development of more selective or more environmentally benign gear for some fisheries. A lack of research monies has thwarted such development. Likewise, a lack of research monies has also hindered the development of potential new fisheries. Any federal fishery research program should make a portion of its funds available for gear development or new fishery development.
Resource Information Systems. Finally, in determining the type of fishery research that needs to be undertaken to support management data needs and assure that fisheries are conducted in a sustainable manner, there has to be in place a system capable of accepting the data that, as noted above, (1) is readily updated, (2) is readily accessible to fishermen, scientists and policy makers, and (3) is transparent. Probably the best example of such a system for compiling information, from GIS to various data points, graphs and photographs, is the Klamath Resource Information System (KRIS) that has been developed for Northern California coastal and now Central Valley watersheds, as well as some in Washington, Maine and Canada. To see an example of how the KRIS program works, go to www.krisweb.org.
In summary, once we agree that the types of research needed for the protection and sustainable management of our fisheries consists of the traditional (1) stock assessments and (2) life histories studies, combined with (3) genetic identification, (4) ocean observations, (5) gear and new fishery development, and placed in a (6) readily accessible resource information system, all with an emphasis on collaboration between fishermen and scientists, then we have the basis of a good research program ready for funding.
A RELIABLE SYSTEM OF FUNDING
The next question is how to fund such a research program at the federal level. Traditionally, federal funds for research have been made through annual Congressional appropriations. Indeed, that’s just about how all federal programs are funded.
The problem, of course, as we identified at the outset, is that we’re not likely to see much in the way of federal funds for fisheries or fisheries research in the near future if Congress and the Administration start getting serious about dealing with the budget deficit. Even as it is, funding for fisheries management now has to compete with every other funding priority, and is usually very low on the list. So what do we do? The prospect of getting the monies from the states is no better. Don’t even think about California, not with its own record budget deficits. Yet should fishing stop simply because there’s no money for obtaining the information needed to manage fisheries?
One alternative to being dependant upon ad hoc annual Congressional appropriations is to develop a special trust fund at the federal level, where fees from a specific source are deposited into a special account that can only be used thereafter for certain specified purposes. The Highway Trust Fund is one such example, supported by gas taxes for the purpose of funding transportation projects. Why not do the same to fund basic fisheries data collection and research?
Probably the best known special fund in the fisheries and wildlife area has been the Dingell-Johnson and now the Wallop-Breaux funds. The latter is supported by a tax on sportfishing equipment and is used to support sportfishing programs in the 50 states. While there are some details of the Wallop-Breaux program that we find problematic (the 5 percent cap on how much any state can receive, for example, no matter how much it has contributed, or leaving it up to state fishery and wildlife agencies to determine how to spend the funds), it does provide a useful model for a beginning point on how to set-up such a program.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES?
Landing Taxes. If a special fund could be set up, ala Wallop-Breaux, at the federal level, what then would be the source of funds? Landing taxes, which are used by many of the states to fund fishing programs, are probably not a good source.
First, many states are already utilizing them as a funding source, at least here on the west coast, meaning fishermen would be hit with a tax at both state and federal levels. Even though most landing taxes are theoretically paid by processors, they are really paid for by fishermen in the price of fish they receive from buyers. So even though fishermen may not write the check for these taxes, it is reflected in the checks they get from processors.
Second, placing a second tax on fish landings would create a further competitive disadvantage for domestically produced fish as against foreign imports. This is something neither the salmon or shrimp fisheries could bear right now.
Third, with so many fisheries currently depressed and with landings so low, there is the question of whether this would be a good funding source anyway, even if states weren’t collecting landing taxes or there was no foreign competition problem.
Fishing Gear Tax. This is one reason the establishment of a federal fund for fisheries research should not follow Wallop-Breaux to the letter. A tax on commercial fishing equipment, unlike recreational fishing gear often bought at Wal-Marts, Sears and other large retail outlets, does not lend itself well to any type of special tax system. The gear tends to be very large ticket items, currently exempted from sales tax, and mostly manufactured (with the exception of engines and electronics) by small firms or home built. Moreover, such a tax on gear would, like a landing tax, put U.S. fishermen at an even greater competitive disadvantage then they are now with respect to foreign competition. Additionally it could act to stifle fishermen from making needed changes to their vessels, including installation of cleaner-burning and more fuel-efficient engines, more selective fishing gear, or better fish-handling equipment aimed at increasing the value of catches in times of declining landings.
Fuel Tax. Currently commercial fishing vessels are exempt, along with farm vehicles, from paying the highway road tax paid for by other gasoline and diesel fuel equipment. A nominal fuel tax on diesel used in fishing boats to pay for such a fund may make more sense than any tax on landings or gear, but is still problematic. True, it could act as an additional incentive for fishermen to install less fuel-consumptive engines, but with the currently high cost of diesel fuel and the low margins most fishermen are operating under such a tax would more likely drive fishermen out of business than provide a good revenue stream for fishery research.
Tidelands Oil Revenues. Another possible funding source could be tideland oil revenues, that is, a portion of the royalties received by the federal government for oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf. The problem is, a lot of other folks are looking to get their hands on these funds too, including the states, which do receive some of these monies already. Another problem of course is that those fishermen most impacted by offshore oil and gas development - Gulf of Mexico and Santa Barbara Channel fishermen, in particular - may feel they should have a greater access to and a greater say over funds derived from tidelands revenues. Finally, making a fishery program, especially fisheries research, dependent on offshore oil drilling could act as an unwanted incentive for fishery agencies to begin advocating for offshore oil drilling – in New England, off Central and Northern California, Oregon, Washington and Bristol Bay where currently there is a moratorium.
Ad Valorem Tax on All Seafood. The last and possibly the best source of funds for a federal fishery research program would be to charge a nominal ad valorem tax on all seafood sold in the U.S. Seafood is already a high ticket item in most supermarkets and restaurants, and a small tax on it would probably not deter any buyers. Moreover, it could give the public a good feeling that they’re helping to save the oceans and fish with their seafood purchases. Since such a fee would be on all seafood sold in the U.S. it would neither be onerous on domestic fishermen, nor a tariff on imports (and thereby raising the hackles of free traders and the WTO). Finally, with it being ad valorem, the fee would be based on the price per pound of the fish, from buffalo fish at a few mil to swordfish at a few cents on the pound.
A nominal ad valorem tax on all seafood sold as a source of funding for a federal fisheries research program makes the most sense to us. But the concept is not without its problems and those are mostly political. Some in the Congress, so taken up with their own anti-tax rhetoric, may be loathe to implement such a program no matter how necessary it may be or how dire the consequences if money is not found for fishery research. Second, there is little doubt the idea will make a great deal of money for lobbyists hanging around the bar of the Capitol Hill Club buying drinks for the Majority Whip with the funds they’ll be getting from all the fish importers, domestic and foreign, claiming such a tax will be taking food out of the mouths of their children.
So it will be a political battle. The question is whether fishing groups, management agencies and scientists can grow the backbone to stand up to fish importers’ groups that have been leading many in this industry around by the nose for such a long time.
DETAILS, DETAILS
Identifying what types of research are needed and how best to fund those efforts are not the only issues to be considered in establishing a program to support and undertake the research needed for our nation’s fisheries. The distribution of the funds is critical, too, for an effective research program. After all, what good does it do to identify research needs and raise monies for them, without a responsive system for allocating the necessary funds? Here are a few different ways for distributing fishery research funds and our own preference.
State Distribution. This is how Wallop-Breaux is done. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which administers that program, distributes the funds to the states up to a maximum of 5 percent of the total fund to any one state. The problem is, since the passage of Magnuson-Stevens over 25 years ago, most of our fisheries are now conducted on a regional basis under fishery council authority, and not on a state basis. Moreover, with the current budget crises many state fish and wildlife agencies are facing, there may be a real temptation by the states to simply use the federal funds to pay for what were originally state programs.
Regional Councils. Entrusting the eight regional fishery management councils with determining research needs, pursuant to the nationally established research program outlined above, should be considered, but is still problematic. First, the councils don’t have management authority over all marine fishes, only the ones they’ve developed federal management plans for. Second, there is a real danger some fishery research needs will get short shrift depending on the make-up of the given councils. Nevertheless, at least the Pacific Fishery Management Council already publishes a good list of fishery management research data gaps, so the Councils certainly can play a constructive role in determining fishery management research needs and priorities.
Interstate Fishery Commissions. The interstate marine fishery commissions were established over 50 years ago for, among other things, distributing federal research dollars on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coast (as well as the Great Lakes). Generally, however, these were monies appropriated by Congress with specific guidelines on how those funds could be spent. Since the state delegations to the commissions are not always representative of the fisheries within those states, it would be very easy for certain fisheries or fisheries sectors to get short shrift in the selection of research projects. The commissions could play a valuable role in distributing research funds, but if they were given the final say there could be considerable opposition from various industry sectors across the country. The commercial fisheries along the east coast may very well object to using the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for such a purpose.
Fishery Research Consortium. One suggestion, and one that makes a great deal of sense to us, would be to form a national research fishery consortium and under it regional consortiums for the purpose of allocating research funds to the regions, which in turn would make grants for specific research projects. These consortiums would consist of representatives from the regional councils, the interstate commissions, the NMFS research laboratories as well as representatives from university research facilities and a majority of members from fishing organizations. Obviously some conflict-of-interest rules would have to be put in place to prevent either NMFS or universities from using their positions in such consortiums to direct research monies to themselves, but we believe such a consortium would be much more representative than any of the existing entities, and more knowledgeable as well. In New England such a research consortium has already been established (although not obviously for distributing federal fishery research dollars) and one is now being considered as well for the west coast.
CONCLUSION
These are difficult financial times for our nation and our fisheries. Unfortunately, the situation is only going to get worse over the next several years. As an industry, we can sit and complain, do nothing and watch things go to hell. Alternatively, we can take steps to remedy these problems and assure a future for this industry. However, solutions will take leadership and they will take action.
In this essay we have provided you a rough outline of a reliable mechanism to perpetually fund management data collection programs so critical for our fisheries, and without which there would be no fishing. We’ve given our ideas on what types of research are most needed, and how to distribute research monies fairly and based on real management needs.
One thing is certain: unless the fishing industry speaks out in favor of better research programs, and develops a plan for funding them, the dollars are simply going to dry up -- and with it much of the fishing industry. What are your thoughts?
Pietro Parravano is a commercial fisherman from Half Moon Bay, California. He is current President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) and has served as a member of the Pew Oceans Commission. Ky Russell works for the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) and heads its Sustainable Fisheries Program, currently focusing on fishermen-scientist collaborative research. Paul Siri is a fishery biologist and former Associate Director of the University of California’s Bodega Marine laboratory. He is currently assisting state, federal and international efforts to implement ocean observation systems and is a science advisor to the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR).
To comment on this article or for more information, contact PCFFA by email at: fish1ifr@aol.com. PCFFA can be reached by surface mail at: San Francisco Office, PO Box 29370, SF, CA 94129-0370 or phone to: (415)561-5080; Northwest Office at: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 or phone to: (541)689-2000. PCFFA’s web site is: www.pcffa.org.