Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
Whether they’re real or imagined, we’ve been hearing a lot about agendas recently. There’s the Bush agenda and the House Republican agenda, the liberal agenda, ad nauseam. And, of course there’s the “Pew Agenda” and the “Gay Agenda” and a few others no one has actually ever seen, of course, but “they exist” according to folks that just don’t like the Pew Charitable Trusts, same sex couples, whatever or whomever, and who had to dream up something because they haven’t had a good bogeyman since the demise of Communism.
The agenda we’re talking about here, however, is something real - neither hidden nor imagined - attempting to chart a constructive course in the incoming Congress for America’s oldest industry and the working fishing men and women in its employ. Here we’ve put forward 10 issues here, some major and some relatively minor, but all important nonetheless, that we think the fishing industry should weigh in on or initiate discussion on in the 109th Congress. We encourage readers of Fishermen’s News to give this fisheries agenda some thought. What changes would you make, what would you add?
In mid-December President Bush unveiled his “Ocean Action Plan” in response to the 212 recommendations made in the 400-page plus report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy submitted to Congress in September 2004. The President then issued an Executive Order creating an Ocean Committee within the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) aimed at coordinating ocean related activities of 18 different federal agencies.
Although extremely modest in comparison to what was recommended by the U.S. Ocean Commission (see http://www.oceancommission.gov; and “U.S. Oceans Commissions Recommendations: The Good and the Bad,” May 2004 FN (www.pcffa.org/fn-may04.htm)) and by the earlier report by the Pew Oceans Commission (see http://www.pewoceans.org; and “A New Look at Managing Oceans, Fisheries,” June 2003 FN (www.pcffa.org/fn-jun03.htm)) the President’s plan does call for some legislation over and above the administrative action set forth in his Executive Order (http://ocean.gov/actionplan.pdf). On the appropriations end, the additional funding called for in the President’s plan is just a few million for coral reef protection, not the billions called for by both the U.S. Commission and Pew Commission. Worse, the principle legislative initiative announced from the President’s “Ocean Action Plan” will be a bill to promote aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (see “Fish Farmers and Fishermen,” January 2004 FN (www.pcffa.org/fn-jan04.htm) discussed below.
While little may be forthcoming from the Bush Administration in the way of ocean legislation, other than a troublesome aquaculture bill, look for members of Congress to be taking various recommendations of the U.S. and Pew Commissions and introducing them as legislation. As Fishermen’s News readers know, some of the recommendations coming from the Pew and U.S. Commissions were problematic, most notably some of those dealing with governance, the regional fishery councils and the promotion of marine protected areas. Most of the other recommendations of the two Commissions, however, are clearly in the best interests of the fishing community and warrant full support of fishermen. These include:
A National Policy to Protect Ocean Waters. The United States does not have any overarching policy calling for the protection of its oceans as it does for clean air or clean water. Since fishermen depend on the resources of the ocean for their livelihood, and the abundance of fish stocks and their marketability depend on a healthy marine environment, endorsing such a policy should be a no-brainer for fishermen.
Governance. Although legitimate concerns have been raised regarding creation of new governmental bureaucracies or centralizing decision-making in Washington as some feared the Commission recommendations would do, certainly there is a need for better cooperation and coordination of federal agencies whose activities affect the oceans and living marine resources. The President’s Executive Order establishing his Ocean Committee may help, but it is an administrative action only and may not go far enough. The lack of coordination and cooperation between agency actions affecting oceans is as bad or worse than the nation’s intelligence apparatus at the time of 9/11 or leading to the invasion of Iraq. Congress has given the nation’s intelligence apparatus a massive overhaul. Is something similar needed for our oceans?
Additionally, there is the question of raising the presence of ocean issues within government by removing the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), currently the parent agency for the National Marine Fisheries Service, and making it an independent or cabinet level agency. Does the U.S. need its own Department of Fisheries & Oceans or can necessary changes be made under the rubric of the Department of Commerce?
Cleaning Up Pollution. The United Nations’ Environmental Program projects that oceanic dead zones, such as that occurring over the past two decades in the Gulf of Mexico -- roughly the size of Massachusetts -- will be the single largest fish killer in the 21st century, far exceeding overfishing. The cause of the dead zones is primarily nutrients from the run-off of chemical fertilizers. The nutrient load coming down the Mississippi, for example, is blamed for the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. This year a small dead zone appeared off the coast of Oregon and more dead zones are expected to begin appearing around the globe unless something is done to curb pollutants.
Moreover, the findings of fish flesh contaminated with PCBs, dioxin, PBDEs and other industrial chemicals even in the Arctic is highly troubling and will begin affecting our markets if we don’t act to prevent and clean-up sources of ocean pollution. It’s not just aquacultured fish that are contaminated, although concentrations are certainly higher in the farmed fish. Low fat and high Omega 3 content will not help sell seafood if consumers think that contaminated fish is carcinogenic or causes neurological problems. Some pollution we may not be able to prevent or clean-up, such as mercury emanating from deep sea vents or volcanoes, but there are many other sources of mercury we can stop, such as that from smoke stack industries, as well as chemicals getting into our waterways from agriculture, industry and municipal sewage.
Even if you think global warming is a hoax, we now know that about half the increase in carbon dioxide getting into the atmosphere is being sequestered by the oceans as carbolic acid, making them far more acidic – and that certainly isn’t good for fish. Even global warming skeptics cannot deny that CO2 emissions are creating this problem, at least for our oceans.
Pollution is clearly the biggest threat to our fisheries, and its prevention and clean-up has got to become a top priority for fishermen; it’s not an issue whose existence we can continue to deny, ignore or leave for someone else to deal with. It’s time to redirect the anger, wrath and venom of so many fishermen and their organizations that for the past decade or more has been directed at fishery agencies or environmentalists, and begin focusing it on a bigger and far more real enemy – polluters and those government agencies permitting it. Otherwise we’re not going to have much in the way of fish, and whatever is left will not be marketable.
Controlling Coastal Development. The impact of coastal development on ocean health was a major focus of the Pew Oceans Commission and should be for fishermen as well. While some states such as California acted early on in their coastal acts to protect commercial fishing ports and facilities within the coastal zone from being displaced by urban and recreational coastal development, other states have not, and so fishing communities are being uprooted. Even in states such as California where fishing facilities are protected, few fishermen can buy a home on the coast, never mind the people working in the fish houses and support businesses. Fishing communities have to be protected from being displaced by coastal development.
It’s not just fishermen that are affected by coastal development. Damage to coastal ocean ecosystems, mainly coastal wetland loss and increased run-off as a result of urbanization, are causing a loss of habitat and impairment of water quality, both of which impact fish populations. The fishing industry needs to develop coalitions with other interests pursuing this issue raised by the ocean Commissions, to push federal legislation protective of the habitat of fish and fishermen alike along the nation’s coasts.
After years of inaction, it appears Congress may finally get around to reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act this year. The rollback of provisions of the Sustainable Fishery Act adopted in the 1996 reauthorization are no longer being talked about, but look for attempts to lengthen the timelines for fish recovery plans or perhaps weaken existing essential fish habitat (EFH) language. Mostly the debate in this reauthorization is expected to center around maintaining the status quo, or implementing some of the recommendations that came out of the two Commissions regarding fishery management. Some of those recommendations were incorporated in the Rahall bill ( H.R. 4706) of last year, introduced by the ranking minority member on the House Resources Committee, Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with a number of coastal co-sponsors. Expect to see another version of that bill this year, which could be the focal point of the House discussions, since House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo is making the Endangered Species Act his prime target this session. Here are items we think will be center stage in Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization:
“Separating Conservation from Allocation.” The concern over fishery management councils permitting allocation issues to take precedence over fishery science, with a resulting overfishing situation, was raised in both Commissions’ reports. This has resulted in a campaign and the sound-bite charge to “separate conservation from allocation.” The problem is real, although the North Pacific Council apparently has avoided it through the process they use for setting total allowable catch and then parsing out the fish.
Unfortunately, there are a number of documented instances where councils set catch levels at far above that recommended by their own scientists because of pressure from fishing groups and peers, and that type of decision has led to overfishing or stock collapses. So this is not a problem that can either be denied or ignored.
However, separating decisions on setting catch caps from allocating the fish thereafter is not as simple as it sounds. First off, not all fisheries are managed by quotas, but rather by season, area closures, gear, etc. Secondly, when, where and how the fish are caught can also have a bearing on stock conservation, not simply how much is caught. Finally, there has been concern that separating these decisions could result in isolating the fishery scientists and preventing the discourse that is sometimes helpful between fishermen and scientists regarding stock status.
The Rahall bill of last session did attempt to address some of these complexities, understanding that the issue was far more nuanced than either Commission recognized. More work is going into bill language this year attempting to address real concerns on both sides – those seeking to stop councils from allowing overfishing, and fishermen worried that language must recognize the complexity of management for many species.
Conflicts of Interest/Council Membership. No one is talking seriously any longer about removing fishermen from regional council membership altogether, but it may be a battle to assure that fishermen can participate in key decisions owing to some past abuses that occurred when some fishery representatives used their council membership to feather their own or their client’s nests, at the expense of either the fish, other fishermen, or both. The argument for having fishermen and other fishery folks on the regional councils was to access their expertise, not to give them, as council members, preferred access to the resource. The trick in developing this language is to assure fishermen’s expertise will still be on the councils, while assuring that no one is using council membership for special advantage.
The bigger conflict of interest issue will be pushing to assure that not just fishermen are subject to conflict of interest provisions, but all council members are subject to the same rules, whether they be an academic, a conservation organization representative or a state fishery director. Assuring there are strong conflict of interest provisions applying to all council members will be even more important as membership on the councils is expanded beyond the immediate fishing community to include more public members.
Look for legislation to promote the expansion of council membership, although it should be noted there is nothing now prohibiting non-fishing individuals from sitting on the councils. In the past there simply wasn’t much interest by others, and NMFS often discouraged those who were interested by claiming (falsely) that the language in the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibited non-fishery participation.
National Standards for Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs). In upcoming Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization debates look again for language to implement standards for the application of individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs in fisheries. In this last session there was also stand alone legislation introduced by Congressmen Tom Allen (Maine) and William Delahunt (Massachusetts) to set standards for the utilization of this controversial fishery management tool. The President’s ocean plan places heavy reliance on quota rights systems. The problem is assuring that his proclaimed “ownership society” does not result in processors holding the quotas and fishermen holding the bag.
There is an increasing recognition, even among some IFQ proponents, that standards are needed, particularly following the North Pacific Council’s adoption of processor quotas for the crab fishery. Make no mistake about it, if this decision by the much ballyhooed North Pacific Council becomes a precedent, it will turn American fishermen into seafaring sharecroppers. This is exactly why standards are needed. Standards are an area where proponents and opponents of IFQ systems should be able to come together to at least assure quotas can only be held by fishermen (captains or crew), that they will in fact assure greater safety at sea, will help to get the greatest value from the resource and will result in real conservation. If folks can’t agree to these, claiming national standards aren’t needed, watch your back.
The Bush Administration is beginning to make noises about cutting federal spending, now being faced with a record national deficit. This has been expected for at least the past two years; it was just a matter of time before the combination of excess spending and tax cuts would dig the nation so far into debt it could no longer be ignored. We’re not here to advocate for or against spending or for or against tax cuts, only to say that there’s a problem with the deficit and as a result federal spending will have to be cut back. That usually means fishery and ocean programs are first on the chopping block, well before agricultural subsidies, or health care and education.
The U.S. Oceans Commission recognized not just the need for an increased level of federal funding for oceans, but also the need to identify and establish a secure source for those funds. It advocated the creation of a trust fund based on offshore oil revenues. The problem is a lot of other interests are also clamoring for those funds. Moreover there is concern that reliance on OCS revenues to fund ocean programs could create an incentive to expand offshore oil drilling.
In the August 2003 FN, Pietro Parravano, Ky Russell and Paul Siri advocated in this column (“Planning and Paying for Future Fisheries Research,” see: www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm) the creation of a permanent fishery trust fund that would not be subject to annual Congressional appropriations to provide a reliable and sufficient level of funding for fishery programs -- namely research and some management functions that are currently underfunded. That trust fund would be supported by an ad valorem fee assessed on all seafood sold (not just landed) in the U.S. At a 5% surcharge rate, that would raise $6 billion annually, more than enough to cover fishery research (including collaborative research), monitoring, assessment and necessary management costs. It could also help to support fishing gear development, helping to make fishing operations more selective. We think the time is now for fishermen to get behind a trust fund program to assure there are sufficient funds to pay for necessary research and monitoring (essential for sustainable fisheries), and for development and management. This could be the Congress that is finally receptive to such a proposal.
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is being targeted by some House members for what they are euphemistically calling “reform.” In other words, they want to gut this law because it angers a lot of their supporters who don’t give a lick about the damage they’re doing to the environment, its fish or other critters or, for that matter, even other people.
For fisheries, particularly salmon, the ESA has proven a valuable tool for getting at destructive activities affecting fish or their habitats that fishing regulations simply can’t reach. The unfortunate part about the ESA is it doesn’t kick in until a resource is in really bad shape, and if it’s a fish, chances are the fishing was halted long before. Nevertheless, the ESA prevents, in many instances, fishermen from solely bearing the conservation burden when there are other major factors affecting fish populations. It is designed not to just prevent extinction, but to recover species, although enforcement agencies (i.e., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service) have been fairly lame when it comes to developing recovery plans, all too often content to “list and let languish.” Finally, protections afforded fish listed under the ESA often benefit abundant fish stocks as well.
Fishermen, and salmon fishermen in particular, should be geared up to fight the assault soon expected on the ESA. This does not mean that some changes to the ESA are not needed, but these should be to strengthen the act, not eviscerate it. Some of these changes could include mandatory timelines for agency completion of recovery plans, or some forms of assistance and incentives for land owners and others whose activities affect species if there is good faith effort to participate in genuine recovery efforts. In any event, the ESA is far too important to our industry not to fight for its proper application when it protects our fisheries (see, “Why Fishermen Need the Endangered Species Act,” January 1995 FN at: www.pcffa.org/fn-jan95.htm).
Watch, too, for efforts on the part of some western members (not the coastal ones) to begin tinkering with the Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes with the intent of weakening them. Fishing is one industry that directly relies on a clean, healthy environment. We cannot afford members of Congress undercutting necessary environmental protections at the behest of the oil and mining companies, agribusiness, industrial polluters or any other special interest.
As was mentioned above, the Bush Administration is set to introduce its bill in this Congress to promote aquaculture in the EEZ. The bill is being spun up by the same folks who gave us threats of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, with ominous warnings of a “U.S. seafood deficit.” Discounting farmed salmon and farmed shrimp imports, there simply is no trade deficit for the U.S. in fish. Indeed, the U.S., if it were not so fixated on its free trade agreements, would be justified banning the imports of farmed salmon and shrimp, just for the havoc they create for the environment. If we can ban pharmaceuticals from Canada or impose restrictions on tuna and shrimp because of the way the fish are harvested, then the U.S. is certainly more than justified in banning farmed salmon and shrimp imports that are environmentally destructive and certainly questionable health-wise, given the level of contaminants found in much of this aquacultured product. The problem is, the Administration may be able to foist off this aquaculture scam before it’s discovered that the so-called “seafood deficit” is a sham.
What this means is that fishermen around the nation need to be united, working in coalitions with other groups, to be sure that any aquaculture legislation that passes is conditioned in such a way that operations permitted under it do not threaten living marine resources or the ocean environment. Among other things, no aquaculture should be permitted in coastal waters or the EEZ unless it can first be demonstrated to: 1) be non-polluting; 2) not spread disease or parasites into the wild; 3) not allow escape of fish; 4) use only native stocks, and no non-natives or genetically modified fish; 5) not interfere with or impair fishing or maritime activities; and 6) result in a net increase in usable protein (not the net loss that now occurs with shrimp, salmon and most carnivorous fin fish aquaculture operations). At the end of the last Congress, Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced a bill (S. 2859) placing a moratorium on offshore aquaculture; that measure could serve as the starting point in the 109th Congress for fishermen. (A good background paper on the problem is “Marine Aquaculture in the United States” that was prepared by the Pew Oceans Commission).
Another issue that should unite U.S. fishermen, and something we need to work on in the 109th Congress, is assuring country of origin labeling (“COOL”) is finally implemented for seafood as called for in the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition to implementing the legislation, it needs to be expanded to include those seafood products that were not included under its provisions. The big battle, however, will be to protect the existing legislation from attack by the grocers and food processors lobby, who don’t want consumers to know where their fish is from or whether its wild caught or farmed.
Another issue related to seafood labeling has to do with contaminants. We’re finding some of our fish is tainted, and some of that to a degree that it is not safe for certain members of the public. This calls for both aggressive action by fishermen against pollution, as outlined above, but also coming together to find ways to provide consumers with information about what contaminants (naturally occurring or the result of pollution) there may be in different types of fish, and what the safe levels are for consumption to get the health benefits of the fish without any health risks.
The challenge is to raise the consumer level of awareness, which will not cause alarm but, rather, encourage smart buying and eating habitats. The wine industry has done a good job with this, telling consumers of the benefits of drinking wine in moderation and warning some consumers to avoid it (e.g., pregnant or nursing women) altogether. Certainly fishermen should be able, working with consumer and health groups, to develop labels and education programs to increase consumer knowledge of seafood so that people will buy seafood wisely and with confidence. This should include information on health benefits and risks, if any, depending on what level of contaminants may exist. Remember that nearly all foods have some level of contamination and fish probably less than most; the question is what levels are acceptable, what levels call for moderation and what levels call for avoidance. Denying problems where they may exist is not an answer. Moreover, cultivating these consumers will help build alliances to fight pollution – the contamination we have the power to prevent.
Fishermen need to pay attention to the various trade agreements being negotiated by the U.S. government. We’ve talked before of the need for real fishermen, not just fish importers and processors, to be at the trade table. But trade should be on fishermen’s agenda as well for Congress, which is called upon to approve the agreements being negotiated by the Administration. Those agreements should only be approved if they assure protection of domestic fishermen. We know all too well in the salmon and shrimp fisheries the havoc imports can wreak in the marketplace and the economy of our industry if trade agreements are not fair, allow dumping or, worse, allow importation of fish from countries having egregious labor and/or environmental standards who are thus able to undercut our own products.
The Bush Administration has adopted a policy of budgeting dredging money only for large industrial ports across the nation, even the “deep water port” of Lewiston, Idaho, yet giving short shrift to the dredging and maintenance needs of the small fishing ports up and down the coast that service most of our nation’s fishing industry. Small cash-strapped ports and port-based fishing communities need this assistance far more than Portland, Seattle or Long Beach. This is not a sexy issue, but it is critical to keeping our fishing ports and fishing communities intact.
As we said above, we’re not here to praise or criticize the Administration’s tax cut policy nor to offer a position on whether or not it should become permanent. The tax issue we want to talk to you about here is the need to preserve a provision Senator Lisa Murkowski got into last year’s appropriations bill allowing fishermen to do income averaging, the same as farmers, for purposes of payment of federal income taxes. Since fish production by its nature is highly variable from year-to-year, season-to-season, income averaging allows fishermen to average out the good seasons with the bad ones for tax purposes. This makes a lot of business sense, is not a federal budget buster and we need to fight to keep it.
The federal Capital Construction Fund (CCF) played a useful role during much of the 20th century, allowing fishermen to set aside a portion of their earnings each year, tax free, for the purpose of building a new fishing boat or substantially rebuilding an existing one. Unlike most other fishing nations, the U.S. provides very little in the way of financial assistance to its fishing fleet. The CCF was one of the few benefits the U.S. industry enjoyed.
Given the overcapacity in so many of our fisheries, however, there has been a clamor to do away with CCF entirely. However, the purpose for CCF remains, i.e., to allow fishermen to set aside some funds tax free for a latter day project, but the needs have simply changed. In the 20th century the need was to build up the fleet and increase the catch. For the 21st century a modified CCF program is essential for fishermen to be able: 1) develop more selective or environmentally-friendly fishing methods; 2) make their vessels safer; 3) make their vessels more fuel efficient; 4) installing fish keeping equipment to assure the highest quality product, and most value for every fish caught; and 5) as a retirement account. This Congress should take this idea and make it a reality.
*****
This is our proposal for a fishermen’s agenda – real, transparent, straight-forward, nothing hidden – that we think fishermen should go to Congress with. What are your thoughts? What do you like? What would you change? When you read this the Congress will be in its second month. We need to act now, not reacting to what they do, but telling them what we want them to do for us, and what we expect then to do for our nation’s oldest industry.
Zeke Grader is the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), the west coast’s largest organization of commercial fishing families. Glen Spain is PCFFA Northwest Regional Director, and Pietro Parravano is the past President of PCFFA and one of two fishermen member’s of the Pew Ocean’s Commission. Comments on this article can be directed to PCFFA at: Southwest Office, PO Box 29370, San Francisco, CA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080; Northwest Office, PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, (541)689-2000; or by email to: fish1ifr@aol.com.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive