Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
The following are excerpts from a speech given by Pietro Parravano to the National Fisherman’s Leadership Conference held 1-2 October 2004 at Fish Expo Atlantic, Providence, Rhode Island, organized by National Fisherman magazine.
I want to thank Jerry Fraser and National Fisherman magazine for their foresight and hard work in organizing this conference to bring together fishermen, processors and others in our nation’s commercial fishing industry to discuss proposals for fishery management reform, in light of both the Pew Ocean Commission and U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendations and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I have been a commercial fisherman for over twenty years, operating out of the small port of Half Moon Bay, just south of San Francisco. I served as President of my local fishermen’s marketing association and for 12 years, until this past March, was President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the largest fishermen’s organization on the U.S. west coast. I remain as President of its education, research and outreach arm, the Institute for Fisheries Resources.
About four years ago, I, along with my colleague here Pat White, was appointed to the newly established Pew Oceans Commission to provide the first comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy in 35 years. Pat and I were the two commercial fishermen selected to this 20-member blue ribbon panel that brought together experts from government, that included three past or present state Governors, a former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, a state legislator, and a Mayor. Appointed, too, were experts from science, including a former astronaut, and from business and conservation.
When the Pew Commission was established, the Congress, after years of delay, finally established the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, whose members were appointed by President Bush, but did not include any fishermen. With two competing commissions, both reviewing U.S. oceans policy, there was concern with having conflicting reports and nothing getting done.
Thanks to the leadership of Pew Commission Chairman Leon Panetta, and U.S. Commission Chairman Admiral Watkins, the two groups worked independently, but in close communication. Dr. Rosenberg, a member of the U.S. Commission, for example, testified before the Pew Commission and I testified before the U.S. Commission. The recommendations coming from the two commissions were very similar, which means we are more likely to see some change come about as a result of this first comprehensive look at our nation’s oceans since the Stratton Commission.
It is from my experience as a Pew Commissioner and the three years of study and travel to various ports around the country and even farms in Iowa, that I want to discuss some of the reforms proposed in the Pew report and echoed by the U.S. Commission. Let me say, first, however that a lot of the hysteria being generated by some regarding the Pew report is unfounded and from those who either have not read the report or simply seized on some sections without reading it in its entirety to understand its message. Fisheries are just one aspect of ocean policy looked at by the Pew Commission. The Pew report likewise covered issues ranging from pollution, to coastal development, to habitat loss to the impacts of aquaculture.
Stop and think. Are there those among us that don’t think pollution is a problem, or that it should not be addressed? Are there those among us that don’t think coastal development and the growing population in the coastal zone doesn’t pose a threat – whether it be the loss of coastal wetlands or the loss of commercial fishing marinas and infrastructure? Are there those among us who don’t think we can improve coordination among government bodies to better protect our coasts and oceans? Are there those among us who think aquaculture in the open ocean doesn’t pose a threat to our fisheries if not properly regulated?
The thing that struck me after meeting with fishermen around the nation is that we have serious problems that have to be addressed. Denial is not an option. While we can pick away at little aspects in the reports and recommendations -- there are some that I don’t like (e.g., marine protected areas (MPAs), and the promotion of individual fishing quotas in the U.S. Commission report) -- the fact is there is a lot in the Pew Commission and the U.S. Commission reports for the fishing industry to embrace. It is those broad areas of commonality that we should now be pushing, instead of being mired in the mud.
Now let me turn to some of the recommendations that have come forward relating to fishery management. Four recommendations, coming out of both the Pew/U.S. Commission reports, have already been incorporated into a bill, H.R. 4706, by Mr. Rahall and others, aimed at reforming fishery management.
During the course of deliberations by the Pew Commission, we heard from some who simply wanted to abolish the regional council system, or at least eliminate fisherman participation on them. They complained that in no other area of resource management were the users allowed to sit on the bodies deciding how much those stakeholders would receive. I heard the analogy made continually to the “fox guarding the henhouse.”
Personally I disagree with allegations that the councils are a terrible way to manage fisheries. From my experience in the salmon fishery, where we are forced to confront logging, hydropower, water supply and land use interests, I am convinced the regional councils that provide for broad public participation and are intended to include the expertise of stakeholders, all in a transparent process, are still the best way to manage our nation’s resources. They should be the model for the process of managing water, forests, public lands, minerals, oil and gas, etc, not something tossed in the waste bin of history.
However, it was also obvious after looking at fishery council operations around the country that serious problems do exist. These problems should not be a reason for disbanding the current system or barring fishermen from council membership, but they do require attention. That is what the Pew and U.S. Commissions have called for. Let me be clear, the reforms proposed are not an attack on the regional council system but a means of protecting it. Rather than circle the wagons to defend the status quo, I would urge our careful consideration of some relatively minor reforms as the way to defend the council process -- a strategy that I think will be much more successful in the long term than denial.
The four proposals for reform are:
The Fishery Conservation & Management Act, as passed in 1976, provided for public members, including commercial and recreational fishing representatives, among the state and federal members on the regional councils. Because of a number of abysmal appointments made in those early years -- people with little knowledge of the fisheries and some with little interest -- and the lack of balance in the appointments, the FCMA was amended in the 1986 reauthorization. Through language developed by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, working with the National Wildlife Federation and others, the act was amended (§302(b)(2)(A), (B), (C)) to require 1) individuals appointed to the councils be knowledgeable of the fishery resources being managed; 2) a “fair and balanced apportionment” of the commercial and recreational interests; and 3) consultation by the Governors with commercial and recreational fishing groups regarding nominees.
At that time there were few, if any, marine conservation groups involved in fishery management, otherwise the amendments may have reflected their explicit participation as well. The amendments were not intended to, nor did they in fact, limit council membership to just commercial or recreational fishing interests. I should know, since my organization was largely responsible for those amendments. Unfortunately, over the years, members of the public, including marine conservation groups, were told incorrectly that membership was just for commercial or recreational representatives. As a result, those groups now are asking for explicit language to allow their membership on the councils.
I want to point out further that when PCFFA worked on drafting and passing the 1986 amendments, it was never our intent to limit council membership just to fishing groups, nor was council membership intended for those who were appointed to divvy up the catch among themselves. I emphasize that this language was never intended as a “to the victor belongs the spoils” system (i.e., those appointed to the councils getting the fish for themselves and their cronies). This would have been antithetical to the whole purpose of the Act.
While conservation groups were being told they did not qualify for council membership, the existing law on appointments has not strictly been followed. Persons without the requisite knowledge for council membership -- certainly less than other competing nominees -- were being appointed. And in other instances there were severe imbalances on councils, despite the law’s clear language. When there are only two commercial fishermen representatives on the 17-member Gulf Council you know something is wrong. When there are only two commercial fishing representatives out of eight public members on the Pacific Council -- the other six are recreational -- you know something is wrong. All I have to say is before anyone starts wanting to defend the status quo on council memberships let’s take a hard look at what’s happening right now.
The amendment in the Rahall bill, explicitly allowing council membership among other interests, helps to refute the charges the councils are dominated by fishermen dividing the catch between them. What the Rahall bill does not do, unfortunately, is guarantee the law will be obeyed when it comes to appointing knowledgeable individuals or assuring there is a balance of fishery interests.
Another of the reforms included in the Rahall bill is one intended to strengthen the councils’ conflict of interest provisions. This amendment, too, should be unnecessary, but for the abuses that have actually occurred. In the course of our travels and hearings on the Pew Commission, we learned of a number of examples of where council members voted their pecuniary interests -- their own pocketbooks -- to the detriment of either the resource or other fishing interests.
Council membership for the fishing industry was intended to assure that the knowledge, the experience, the perspectives of fishermen and others in the industry were included on the councils, and not simply relegated to advisory panels or public testimony. It was not intended for people to use their memberships to personally benefit -- except to the extent their decisions might improve the health of the resource and the fishery overall. To that end, I do not believe asking fishermen to recuse themselves on issues where they have a financial interest is unreasonable. In fact, it should have been happening all along. Keep in mind, this Rahall bill conflict of interest provision still allows fishermen to be council members; they simply can’t use that council membership for their personal benefit or for the direct financial benefit of those they may represent.
The problem we have had on some councils is that actual fishermen, whose knowledge, experience and perspective are critical, I think, to sound management of our fisheries, are not being appointed. In their stead, we are seeing lawyers, lobbyists and association Executive Directors being appointed, many whom have never set foot on a commercial fishing boat, much less been to sea. In a sense, the appointment of these “third parties” to represent us is our own fault because many fishermen are not willing or do not have the wherewithal to take the time to commit to one or two terms on a council. In too many instances, we’ve willingly allowed those who are clever, have legal or legislative acumen, or closets full of three-piece suits to serve as substitutes for the knowledge, experience and perspective of veteran working fishermen. Unfortunately, the Rahall bill does not address this problem regarding council membership.
Nor does the Rahall bill address some of the other more insidious forms of conflicts of interest. These have to do with individuals who do not have a direct economic tie to a vote, but whose vote would benefit those they represent, which could include conservation groups or academia. Moreover, neither of the commission reports, nor H.R. 4706, addresses the conflict of interest of state fishery directors, or their representatives, who we have seen vote the positions of the state administrations they work for to the detriment of either the fish or fishermen.
Finally, the Rahall bill does not address the conflict of interest that exists right now within the agency. In the Northwest today, we have a former Bonneville Power Administration official calling the shots for the recovery of salmon that affect the operations of the hydro dams on the Columbia River whose power is sold by the BPA. Guess what kind of decisions we’re getting? Salmon are being placed at greater risk of extinction to provide for full power generation by the BPA.
To make matters worse, a former attorney for the timber industry -- the individual who devised the idea of counting hatchery fish for the purpose of delisting fish stocks from the Endangered Species Act -- is now the NOAA attorney in charge of defending salmon in the Pacific Northwest. It was of little surprise then when the agency failed to appeal the decision on counting hatchery fish for purposes of the ESA. This policy leaves fishermen -- commercial, recreational and Tribal -- to carry the conservation burden alone, as well as increases the chances of extinction of many of these runs.
The concern I have with the Rahall bill, and the recommendations of my Pew Commission and the U.S. Commission, is that they don’t go far enough when addressing conflicts of interest. The reform will help to assure participation by commercial fishermen on the councils and that their votes are beyond reproach. The only problem is the votes of others whose conflicts are more subtle, but more pervasive.
This proposed reform has been described as “separating conservation from allocation.” What is meant by this is that the decision on what the total allowable catch of a stock should be would be taken out of the hands of the councils and placed in the hands of some group of scientists that are supposed to know more than the rest of us and who have no financial interest associated with fishing. The matter of allocating the total allowable catch, once set by these scientists, would then be left up to the council.
I have to say I initially had problems with this concept. First, as one who was trained as a scientist, I am humble enough to know I’m not God, but others aren’t either. I don’t have complete faith in the scientists as some do; I’ve seen them make too many mistakes. Second, I think it’s important that there be the dialogue, the discussions between fishermen and scientists to compare notes, to provide observations. Neither group, I believe, operates well in a vacuum. So separating who makes the decision on total catch, from those deciding who gets what, I felt was a terrible idea, because it could isolate the scientists from the fishermen.
On the other hand, during my time working on the Pew Commission we had a number of examples brought to us where councils voted for much higher TACs than they should have, in the face of scientific data indicating more conservative management was in order, but under pressure from fishing groups for higher catch levels. Some of this, of course, could have been avoided had NMFS simply said no. The Secretary, after all, does have final veto authority. The Secretary, for example, has overturned allocation decisions, such as one by the Pacific Council dealing with the split of Pacific whiting between the small trawl fleet unloading to shoreside processors, with the at-sea processing ships.
The concerns of Cape Cod fishermen, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and some of the other commercial and recreational fishing groups regarding the necessary discourse between fishermen and scientists was raised at least at the Marine Fish Conservation Network level (MFCN is a backer of HR 4706) and an attempt was made, in crafting the language in H.R. 4706, to get at the problem identified of councils adopting too high of total catch limits while still addressing the concern over the need to keep open lines of communication between fishermen and scientists. I should add, too, that we noticed this problem of adopting too high of catch limits did not exist on the North Pacific Council, where they’ve already adopted a kind of separation of decision making between total catch and the allocation of that catch.
Finally, the Rahall bill, in response to commission recommendations, requires the training of regional council members. A number of the terms and concepts used in fishery management are foreign, even to the most experienced fisherman, never mind a layperson, so having some form of formal training for council members before they take their seats makes a great deal of sense. With the training, however, I suggest they also be shown videos of the various types of fishing, if not allowed to go out on the boats themselves and talk with fishermen, to get a better handle on what it is they are to manage.
While the Rahall bill gets at training for council members once they’re appointed, I’d also suggest a much more thorough process at the beginning of the appointment process, including interviews of potential council members to know who it is that’s being appointed and their skills and weaknesses. Just relying on a background security check, a resume and some letters from supporters I don’t think is sufficient for selecting those individuals charged with overseeing the development and recommending management plans for our nation’s fisheries. Here again, I think the fishing industry ought to insist on more.
Most of the focus on fisheries reform has surrounded council management and the reforms now part of the Rahall bill. There are, however, at least three additional issues having to do not so much with reform of our fisheries, but to improve our chances for success in conserving and managing our fisheries in the future. These issues were not part of either the Pew or U.S. Ocean Commission reports, but would, I believe, compliment all or part of the recommendations made.
Fishery Trust Fund. Money is going to be critical, whether it be to maintain the status quo or enact some or all of the recommendations of the two ocean commissions. We need money for fishery research. Much of our past research has been woefully inadequate because of a paucity of funds for research and stock assessments. We also need money for management. The biggest threat to the council system is not any recommendation made in the Pew or U.S. Commission reports, but the budget slashing that will have to take place in the next years in Congress in light of the record federal budget deficit. Our biggest challenge may well be defending a system that many might find inefficient or cumbersome – the councils – when there aren’t adequate funds for education or health care, much less fishery research.
The U.S. Commission did recommend an overall ocean trust fund, but with offshore oil revenues for its financial base. In its final report the U.S. Commission did, apparently, manage to address concerns raised by governors, some members of Congress and my organization, among others, that this potential $5 billion annual revenue source not create an incentive for new offshore oil drilling. The problem is these funds are going to have to be shared with a number of other needs, and do not guarantee that the monies needed for fishery research or management, or even some necessary research and development on new fishing gears, will be there.
Last year, I co-authored a paper that appeared in The Fishermen’s News, a Seattle-based west coast trade publication, on the need for a fishery trust fund to finance the programs desperately needed for our fisheries (see FN August 2003, “Planning and Paying for Future Fisheries Research,” available at: www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm). As I said, the situation, as bad as it’s been, will just get worse in the coming years because of the looming record deficit. We need to find our own off-budget source of funding. The recreational fishery has its own Wallop-Breaux Sportfishing Restoration Fund, to finance its programs across the nation. We need the same thing, albeit from a different source, to assure we don’t have fishery shut downs just because we don’t have the funds for the basic research and assessments necessary for fishery management.
Collaborative Research. Next, I think we need to find ways to expand the successful examples of collaboration between fishermen and scientists, such as the ongoing program in the Gulf of Maine and some of the groundfish and salmon tagging work taking place on the west coast. Good data and ample amounts of data are essential for good fishery management. Collaborative research and assessment programs utilizing the skills, knowledge, experience and observations of fishermen combined with the training and knowledge of scientists is probably the best method for getting reliable and good quality data in the most efficient manner. With budget cutbacks, we’ll need to find more effective ways of carrying out research than building and operating new research vessels. Likewise, opportunities for fishermen and their vessels to engage in research is a good way to help see many in the fishing industry through tough times brought on by cutbacks in catches. This collaboration I see as essential for conserving both fish and fishermen.
Resource Information Systems. Finally, with all the rhetoric and hype about ecosystem management we’d better begin developing the tools for implementing it. Ecosystem management is just a lot of hot air if there aren’t resource information systems in place, incorporating numerous types of data sets, to provide us the guidance in managing for ecosystem impacts. One of the best systems I know of has been developed for Northern California watersheds, through state, federal and private foundation contracts and grants, called KRIS, or the Klamath Resource Information System.
What KRIS does is provide a web-based system with all the critical information, from GIS to research papers (published and unpublished), data points, graphs and the other types of information necessary for understanding the implications of decisions in a ecosystem. What is needed now is taking KRIS, or something like it, and to begin applying it to our ocean waters. The system also serves as a tool for determining sites for marine protected areas (MPAs), taking some of the guesswork out of it and, more importantly, as a tool for assessing whether an MPA is effective or not.
The beauty of the KRIS-type system, of course, is that it’s an ideal repository for data developed from collaborative research projects and that which we expect from the ocean instrumentation system being developed. The point is, however, that for ecosystem management to work it has to have an information system to work off of. As an industry, we should take the lead in insisting in the development of good information systems, if not for ecosystem management, then simply to improve upon what we now have.
Pietro Parravano is a 20-year commercial fisherman from Half Moon Bay, California. He is past President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), current President of the Institute for Fisheries Resources, and served as a member of the Pew Oceans Commission. 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.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive