Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News
Archive
With the close of the contentious 107th Congress, it is once again time for the fishing industry to take political stock and craft an agenda for the new Congress.
The 107th Congress was disappointing. Though it debated some key fishing industry issues, the last Congress mostly punted on anything substantive for our industry. Instead it became paralyzed and preoccupied by partisan bickering as control shifted between the parties in the Senate, and gridlock ruled in the House. Much of the time the 107th Congress was also preoccupied with other (albeit important) national security issues. Meanwhile the biological and economic national security of the nation’s seafood supply became a low political priority.
Many urgent issues face coastal and fishing-dependent communities today that demand solutions. These issues include not only revamping the fundamental laws that govern fisheries management (particularly the Magnuson-Stevens Act) but also many other laws that protect our industry. Poor funding for critical research is also hampering good fisheries management. Whole fleets are in economic freefall, including both the west and east coast groundfish fleets, with many ports and fishing-dependent communities facing bankruptcy.
Meanwhile Congressional budgets have gone in only two years from massive surpluses to massive deficits. Getting money for any purpose is going to be tight and increasingly competitive. Our industry must have a tightly focused agenda to take to Congress if we are to succeed. We must also have allies.
Here is our effort at a fishing industry Congressional Agenda for the 108th Congress. We invite your comments.
Prevent Any Weakening of Environmental Laws
Essential for Healthy Fish Populations.
Environmental protection statutes such as the federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a number of others will be likely targets for new Congressional Committees to attack, particularly in the House Resources Committee. Outgoing and retiring House Resources Committee James V. Hansen (UT) left a number of bills either filed or in draft form that will serve as a blueprint for those attacks. The western states’ Republican “cowboy caucus” is certain to ally once again with lobbyists from the mining, timber and agribusiness industries to push their anti-environmental agenda, as they have for many years. This time, however, the Bush Administration may well be sympathetic and his party has control over both the Executive and Congressional branches of government.
While the composition of this Congress will make it difficult to make existing laws tougher (e.g., Corps of Engineers reform), it is critical to protect those environmental statutes now on the books as essential for maintaining or restoring the healthy fish populations our industry depends upon. Particularly the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is driving the west coast salmon restoration efforts. We have written many times about the importance of the ESA to commercial salmon fishermen (see for instance the January 1995 Fishermen's News, “Why Fishermen Need the Endangered Species Act,” on the web at: www.pcffa.org/fn-jan95.htm). All these laws are likely to be under Congressional assault by the very industries that have profited so handsomely from the destruction of salmon habitat to date.
The only thing likely to prevent a major Congressional rollback of U.S. environmental laws is that the anti-environmental agenda of most western Republicans is not popularly supported by voters. Nor is it shared even throughout the party. Nor should any of these issues be partisan ones. In fact, some of the staunchest advocates of environmental protection, both past and present, have been Republicans, and there is a growing movement within the Republican party, through such grassroots groups as “Republicans for Environmental Protection,” to restore the Republican Party’s conservation legacy. President Bush also does not want to go into the next Presidential election labeled as an enemy of the environment. Therefore attacks on environmental laws are likely to come as covert stealth attacks in the name of “balance” or “sound science” or “protecting property rights” and other buzzwords used to cloak bad ideas in a garment of respectability, or as efforts to simply cut funding for enforcement.
Energy policy is another arena fishermen are going to have to pay some attention to in the upcoming Congress. Hydropower dam owners do not want to install often expensive fish passage structures in fish-killing dams, but current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rules require fish passage when those dams come up for relicensing. Hundreds of west coast dam licenses will soon have to be renewed. Not surprisingly, energy companies spent a lot of effort last Congress trying to undo those laws, and this issue is sure to spill over into the 108th Congress. Coalition groups like the National Hydropower Reform Coalition (of which PCFFA is a member) will be watching Congress closely to head off FERC “reforms” that would allow dams to continue to devastate rivers and kill off whole fisheries. We will also be working with Congress seeking funds to get some of the worst fish-killing dams removed.
Groundfish Fleet Disaster Assistance
and Capacity
Reduction
Federal fisheries mismanagement has nearly killed the nation’s groundfish fleets. To avoid an even worse collapse, west coast groundfish and rockfish quotas were cut in 2002 to very small fractions for what they once were and major portions of the continental shelf are now closed to trawlers. Even so, boccacio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish and darkblotched rockfish are not expected to recover for decades. Yet federal fisheries investment programs still provide financial incentives to build yet more fishing vessels in overcapitalized fisheries.
According to Pacific Fisheries Management Council figures, the west coast groundfish fleet is now at least 60 percent overcapitalized, making it nearly impossible to make a living in these fisheries. The economic toll this collapse will take on west coast fishing-dependent communities is going to be grim. Similar overcapitalization problems have been facing groundfish fishermen on the east coast, so it’s a national problem.
In the 107th Congress, Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith co-sponsored a Senate bill (S. 973) and California Congresswoman Lois Capps sponsored a parallel bill in the House (H.R. 2376) that would have established a financial mechanism to permanently retire excess vessels in the groundfish fleets by buying out willing sellers at a fair price. The mechanism for vessel retirement is a revolving loan fund, with loans financed at least half out of an industry fee system paid into by the vessels remaining, and the remainder financed by the federal government. Senator Wyden, who led the effort in the Senate, was actually able to get the initial 1 percent federal loan guarantee approved by Congress, but the bills themselves died for lack of time in the closing days of the second session.
The two bills would also have expanded the purposes of the Capital Construction Fund to allow captains to use it for personal retirement instead of just upgrading to bigger boats. PCFFA has also ask that the purposes of the Capital Construction Fund be expanded to include safety equipment upgrades as well as purchasing more selective gear, both of which also make sense for any boats remaining in the fisheries.
Passing this or some other form of capacity reduction and vessel retirement program for ground fleet relief is an absolute necessity, and the only way to avoid economic disaster. PCFFA feels the federal government should take full responsibility for causing these disasters in the first place and fully fund the program. If Congress can give farmers $78 billion in assistance through the Farm Bill, it can afford $200 million (less than two tenths of one percent of the Farm Bill price tag) to help solve a widespread fisheries crisis of its own making. However, short of that, inaction is not an option and at a minimum these bills should be reintroduced with a few improvements.
Reinvesting in Port Infrastructure
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their friends in Congress have been trying to pull away from maintaining small coastal harbors (e.g., Morro Bay, Fort Bragg, Ilwaco) that much of the fishing fleet depends on, in favor of big dredging projects (e.g., Long Beach, Oakland, the Columbia River and Lewiston, Idaho). Part of this is political – there are more voters in big ports than in small ones – and part of this is that highly visible big projects pad out the Corps budgets better. The policy is now to concentrate resources on big ports with “global” impacts rather than small ports whose impact is “only regional.” For those who live and work in those small coastal ports, however (which is most commercial fishing families), this policy is a disaster in the making.
The current Administration’s policy of dis-investment in small coastal ports will eventually put many of these ports out of business. Dredging in these ports is far too expensive for hard-pressed local port districts to pay for on their own. It will be important to press for equitable treatment for the nation’s many small ports in future appropriations. Without those ports, much of the nation’s seafood industry, and certainly the economies of those isolated coastal communities, could be in dire jeopardy.
Investing in Fishery Research and Cooperative Programs
Between Fishermen and Scientists
One of the reasons so many of our fisheries are in a mess is due to a lack of adequate or complete data upon which to manage the fisheries. Congress has been systematically underfunding fisheries data collection for many years. Overfishing of stocks is caused today more by simple lack of knowledge of population numbers than any other factor. Managers all too often have to simply guess. If they guess wrong, however, it is fishermen and fishing communities who suffer from the resulting collapse.
It will be important for the fishing fleet to press for additional monies for research, both from within and outside of the federal government. It is especially important that fisheries data collection research programs not be on the chopping block as Congress begins to realize what a big deficit hole it is digging with Star Wars, Homeland Security and a possible war with Iraq. Cooperative research is a good solution, by using fishermen and their vessels – teamed up with scientists – so money can be saved on outlays for personnel and equipment, fishermen’s extensive knowledge can be utilized, and part of the fishing fleet at least can be kept solvent during these periods of quota cutbacks and stock rebuilding by employing them in research and stock assessment endeavors.
Fishery Management Funding
The budget surpluses of prior years have not only vaporized, Congress is now facing years of major deficits. A number of critical fishery programs, already grossly underfunded, could well be on the chopping block.
It will be important for the fishing fleet to work to maintain at least current funding levels for a number of important programs, ranging from basic data collection and research, regional council operations and enforcement, to the operation of mitigation salmon hatcheries. The industry should also begin looking at ways to help contribute to funding fishery programs through a special “locked box” account in the Treasury Department that could only be used for such programs (i.e., one that can’t be raided for any other purpose). Probably the best way to do it without impacting an already beleaguered fleet would be a nominal ad valorem fee charged on all seafood sold in the U.S., regardless of source. That way everyone would pay and American fishermen would maintain an even playing field with imported fish in the U.S. market.
Another thing that needs doing on the funding front is to get the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funds reprogrammed back to funding fishing programs as was intended when that law was passed in 1954. NMFS and the Department of Agriculture have been using these tariff monies as a slush fund in recent years and NMFS is presently using it to subsidize research and development for private aquaculture. That has to be stopped.
Curtailing Aquaculture Promotion
NMFS is back at it again, this time in more of a stealth mode, trying to promote offshore aquaculture, particularly for finfish (see Natasha Benjamin’s December 2002 FN article, “Aquaculture’s Next Wave Threatens to Swamp Commercial Fisheries” available at: www.pcffa.org/fn-dec02.htm). The fishing industry should watch for any legislative efforts to further foster this dubious idea, until there has been a full and open public discussion and strong protective standards established, including those for the protection of wild fish stocks and our fishing fleet.
Fishermen should also begin pressing for some standards as well as controls over the amount of support/subsidy the federal government is providing aquaculture. Notwithstanding whatever action the Food & Drug Administration may take on the application by Aqua Bounty to allow the use of its fast-growing transgenic Atlantic “frankenfish” salmon in U.S. fish farm operations, the fishing fleet should be pressing for some form of moratorium on the use of genetically modified fish until more is known and their risks better understood. The states of Washington and Maryland now have transgenic fish restrictions on their books, but efforts to obtain a moratorium in California and Oregon have so far failed.
Seafood Labeling
Thanks to Senators Stevens, Murkowski, Boxer, et al., this past year’s Farm Bill included language requiring the labeling of fish by country of origin and whether its wild or farmed, beginning in 2004. That is very good news for U.S. fishermen and something we have worked to achieve for many years.
The problem is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture opposes labeling (and informed consumers generally), so it may try to drag its feet on implementation. Moreover, some of the big food processors (the folks bringing us feed lot corn and antibiotic saturated beef, genetically modified corn and soy, Twinkies, Cheez Whiz and Cool Whip), including Tyson Foods, are preparing to fight labeling. So the fishing fleet will need to be on guard this session to thwart any attempt to undo some of the good language provisions that were in the Farm Bill.
Dealing With International Trade
Since Congress gave the President fast track trade negotiation authority in the last Congress (by the thinnest of votes), there may not be much fishermen can do at the Congressional level on international trade issues affecting fisheries. However, fishermen can and should be pressing their Congressional representatives to assure that working fishing men and women, not just fish processors and importers, are at the table advising the U.S. Trade Representative in negotiations with Chile and other Latin American nations as well as the rest of the international community when it comes to fishery matters.
MPAs and Marine Sanctuaries
A number of environmental groups and marine researchers have jumped on the marine protected area (MPA) band wagon as the latest fad in fish and ocean conservation, no matter what the science says or doesn’t say. They’ve been especially quick to push for these MPAs within our National Marine Sanctuaries, most of which were established in part to protect important fishing grounds for fishing and supported by fishermen for that purpose.
While establishing MPAs may give the enviros a “measurable result” that pleases funders, the fishing fleet is more interested in actual results in the real world – i.e., will an MPA really result in more fish, or protection of an essential ecosystem, and do so with a minimal preemption of fishing grounds or disruption to fishing? As we have also seen, a number of members of Congress with horrendous environmental records on land (and in the air) appear more than willing to sacrifice commercial fishermen if it gets them a few more environmental brownie points. Thus the industry will need to be on guard that it is not sacrificed in the clamor to create massive MPAs.
In the dealing with the MPA issue, it will important to assure that funds are set aside for measuring socio-economic impacts on fishing-dependent communities resulting from any MPA establishment, along with good monitoring programs for any MPAs that are established. For PCFFA’s official Policy Statement on MPAs generally go to: www.pcffa.org/mpa3.htm.
Individual Fishery Quotas (IFQs)
Congress adjourned in November 2002 without either extending the moratorium on new Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) programs or establishing national standards for the creation and implementation of this controversial new allocation system. This issue was discussed in our column in the November 2002 Fishermen's News issue (see: www.pcffa.org/fn-nov02.htm) and its importance should be readily apparent to anyone in the fisheries. IFQs in a fishery could fundamentally and permanently change that fishery for better or worse.
It must be remembered that IFQs are still very much experimental and some have already failed. Establishing national standards, to allay some of the fears of IFQ opponents, seems to be the middle ground between those opposing these systems and those clamoring for them. An extended moratorium will not please those who believe an IFQ system would help a particular fishery. Likewise, doing nothing and allowing each regional council and NMFS to attempt to put IFQs in place would just result in a free-for-all, with opponents eventually “monkey-wrenching” the system by opposing them in court. It is important, therefore, that the industry push for establishment of strong standards as quickly as possible. This is one of many instances in which industry leaders must lead, and Congress will follow.
Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization
The 107th Congress, like the 106th before it, could not get it together to come up with a reauthorization of our nation’s primary fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (also called the “Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)”). What is critical is that the gains made in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act not be undone, that some well-crafted strengthening language be considered, as well as language to make the act work better for both the fish and the fishing fleet.
Reauthorization is overdue and the issue is sure to come up early in the 108th Congress. Fishermen’s groups will need to be engaged to assure that the powerful processor/importer lobby doesn’t gut the law, nor the enviros make it so restrictive that it becomes impossible to operate under.
Protecting Coastal Resources Against Offshore Oil
Oil companies and their friends in the Bush Administration are pushing to open whole sections of the western U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) to the sort of massive oil exploitation already occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. Recent court victories for state review powers notwithstanding, major west coast fisheries, particularly in California, are vulnerable if the federal government opens up the OCS for more drilling.
Currently there is a fragile Congressional moratorium on new OCS oil development along the west coast. This is a moratorium most commercial fishermen supported, and for very good reason. However, this moratorium has to be annually extended. It is up to the fishing industry to weigh in once again in support of continuing that moratorium and eventually making it permanent. The fact is, the amount of oil available from OCS leases on the west coast is extremely small, but the risks of new drilling in sensitive coastal waters are extremely high for both the fishing industry and the marine environment.
Also of immediate need, given the likelihood of another major west coast oil spill, is Congressional legislation that would allow states to set higher safety standards for oil tanker shipments while in their state waters then the very minimal current federal law. Late in the 106th Congress, former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) introduced S. 2506 and Representative Jack Metcalf (R-WA) introduced H.R. 4385, to give states more authority in setting oil tanker safety standards in their own waters.
If we are to prevent more major oil spills, particularly along the west coast, states should be allowed to adopt reasonable safety standards for their particular situations, especially considering the enormous fisheries damages that such accidents can have on coastal economies. However, since the December, 1999 INTERTANKO v. Locke decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that invalidated Washington State’s tanker safety rules, it is clear that it will take Congressional action to make these sorts of common sense, state-based tanker safety standards possible.
Additionally, Congress should fast-track conversion of the oil tanker fleet to double-hulled vessels, which is going very slowly, by requiring it within five years for all tankers plying U.S. waters. The European Union has already banned single-hulled tankers from its waters. The recent Spanish oil tanker disaster caused by the sinking of the M/S Prestige, an aged single-hulled tanker ship carrying twice as much oil as the Exxon Valdez, makes it clear that no coastline is safe. For the Spanish fishing fleet, this disaster will take years to recover from. However, additional safety standards and an outright single-hulled tanker ban could make such a disaster far less likely.
Toward a New Oceans Policy
During the next few months the final reports of both the privately organized Pew Oceans Commission and the Congressionally chartered U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy will be delivered to Congress. Both these Commissions will have much to say about ways to better protect fragile ocean resources, manage fisheries and protect our coastlines.
Like the prior Stratton Commission report of 30 years ago, these reports will make a number of policy recommendations that Congress should pay close attention to. While we do not know what will be in these reports, it is clear that much of what we are doing now is not working very well. These reports should bring much needed perspective and likely result in much needed agency reforms. Fishermen should pay close attention to what results and seize the opportunity.
Zeke Grader is PCFFA’s Executive Director reachable at its Southwest Regional Office, PO Box 29730, San Francisco, CA 92129-0370, and by phone at: (415)561-5080; Glen Spain is PCFFA’s Northwest Regional Director, PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, reachable by phone at: (541) 689-2000. PCFFA’s web site is: www.pcffa.org and its general email is: fish1ifr@aol.com.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive