Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
This past month PCFFA was asked for recommendations for fishery projects that might be suitable for inclusion in a national economic stimulus package that is expected to be taken up shortly after the new Administration is sworn in (see below). We had just finished writing about the changes we'd like to see for fisheries from an Obama Presidency and the 111th Congress (see "Change for the Better: A Fisheries Short List for the New Administration and Congress," FN, December 2008, www.pcffa.org/fn-dec08.html). This got us thinking.
Then came the announcement from the California Ocean Protection Council of its California Fishery Challenge program (also see below), offering to provide grants to fishing groups to take on some of our fisheries' unmet needs. This all led to discussion among ourselves about creating a longer-term vision of what we want our fisheries to be like in the future, and to solicit the thoughts of others. For years we've complained that all we seem to do as an industry is react. Now is a great opportunity to be more proactive.
So for this month we thought we'd give you some of our ideas based on years of discussions in meeting halls, as well as coffee shops and bars, about the types of fisheries we'd like to see and creating that vision so we can act on it.
Fish are a public trust resource. Until they are caught, they belong to all the people of the nation. They are, as Crab Boat Owners Association President Larry Collins likes to say, "the people's fish."
As such they do not belong to any agency. Nor do they belong to any individual, despite efforts of management entities to divide a fish stock or stocks into shares that can be freely traded and treated de facto as private property (in spite of multiple legislative and regulatory declarations that they are not private but are public property).
To us then, it seems that this public resource should provide for the greatest overall benefit to the nation. For commercial fishing that should mean providing the most jobs, including employing the most vessels possible, balanced by the need to assure fleet flexibility as well as economic viability of individual fishermen (i.e., those having at least a modicum of skill, luck and willingness to work) and their communities -- while of course always living within the basic biological constraints necessary to maintain abundant stock levels indefinitely (i.e., sustainably).
The problem facing our fisheries is not really captured by the glib description offered by some in government, academia, or NGOs of "too many fishermen (or boats), chasing too few fish." It is, rather, a matter of too many large vessels, or vessels of excessive capacity, chasing limited numbers of fish in too small an area.
The latter is, in fact, the way the issue needs to be framed for managing this public trust resource for the greatest benefit for the nation. What this means is turning on its head and repudiating the current notion of NMFS and the regional councils that "efficiency" in public fisheries is somehow achieved by a drastic reduction in fleet size, thereby consolidating catch -- and even control in the instance of IFQ programs -- into the hands of a very few larger vessel owners. This is the irrational approach managers are euphemistically calling "rationalization" (a term evoking visions of "A Modest Proposal," or "The Final Solution"). The road to Hell is often paved with failed economic theories such as this one.
Rather than engage in economic cannibalization -- which, in effect, fleet rationalization programs are -- we ought to be looking at what our fishing community needs are and basing our planning on meeting those needs. For instance, how many trawlers do we actually need to provide the flatfish landings for ports and small processing plants up and down the coast? What type of fleet makes the most sense -- one composed of a 100 small trawlers distributed throughout the coastal ports, or thirty (or fewer) operating out of few large ports delivering to a few large processors?
Small boat fleets also typically have another advantage, one that will be at a premium as conditions in the future oceans become less and less predictable: flexibility. It is far easier for many smaller boats to distribute broadly within a fishery, thus spreading out effort geographically to avoid undue environmental impacts in any one area, than it is for a handful of huge capital intensive vessels. With major (but as yet unpredictable) shifts in stock migrations, composition and distribution likely due to global climate change, this kind of flexibility might make all the difference between economic survival and bankruptcy.
So our first thought here for a future vision for our industry is to disabuse policy makers and managers of the notion that we need to continue reducing our fleet size and number of fishermen in our fisheries. Rather, let's look at it the other way -- how many boats and fishermen can we reasonably employ, achieving at least a middle class income for participants, with the available stocks?
Fisheries in the U.S. are no longer a growth industry. It is a mature industry constrained by the stringent biological limits of sustainability, and we need economic models -- and planning mechanisms -- that takes that basic fact into account. The economics of the future fishing industry must be based on biological sustainability and steady-state economic theory, not perpetual and exponential growth.
Our second thought here is the need for increased fishery diversity. We've heard the lectures from financial planners about diversified investment portfolios. Well, the same holds true for our fisheries. Fishermen need to have access to more than one fishery -- they need their own diverse portfolios. The path of management, however, whether through fixed quota or limited entry systems, and now via designated catch shares being promoted or implemented for some fisheries, has been to lock fishermen into a single fishery. This policy works directly against the kinds of flexibility we will likely need.
Specialization sounds great -- that is, until there is a downturn in fish abundance or the market for that particular fish takes a dive. Then you are dead in the water for what may be a long time.
Our vision is to create management structures that allow fishermen to have their own diversified fish portfolios so they can participate more easily in multiple fisheries, albeit always constrained by biological limits. Such diversification is even more important in the face of a major biological fact: all fisheries are cyclical. Each stock has its own up and down swings, often depending on biological connections that are subtle or even largely unknown. Just like in evolutionary theory, however, it is the more flexible business operations who survive under changing economic conditions.
Likewise, fishing ports need to have a diversity of fisheries to sustain them over the long term. A variety of local fisheries, harvested by an assortment of gear types carried within a larger and more diversified fleet, is by far the best way for our ports and fishing communities to remain economically viable and to buffer themselves against the vagaries of nature and the marketplace.
A third important factor is access. All the permits in the world will do you no good if you lose physical access to the fishing grounds you need to make those permits meaningful. Access is now threatened all along the west coast by multiple factors including an excessive zeal for imposing more "marine protected areas," offshore and nearshore oil, energy and aquaculture development, and growing "dead zones." Fishing grounds themselves should also be diversified and geographically well distributed for similar reasons.
Our vision for larger (but still mostly small- and mid-sized boat based), more geographically well distributed and more diverse fleets is not simply philosophical, but driven as well by hard-nosed pragmatism. Consider the following factors and you begin to understand our wariness of a shrinking fleet based only on larger boats that are over-specialized and perhaps over-capitalized.
Infrastructure. Maintaining the infrastructure of our ports, including dredging and channel maintenance, along with the marinas and wharves, the processing plants, fuel docks, ice houses, gear stores and boat repair yards cannot continue to survive as customers -- fishermen and their vessels -- disappear.
It is difficult enough during season cutbacks or hard economic times for fishing operations to survive. Without a critical mass of working vessels in each of our ports, then coastal port infrastructure itself begins to collapse. Once lost, it may be lost for good as working marinas give way to other types of development.
Political. As the number of fishermen and vessels begin to disappear, so does our political influence. The real danger is not that we lose some special influence (which commercial fishermen never really had outside of Alaska and, perhaps, New England), but in our ability to make the case politically for our protection from any number of threats including offshore oil drilling, aquaculture, water diversions affecting the health of salmon and estuarine-dependent stocks, dumping or pollution.
The wannabe giant trawlers and crabbers would do well to remember that the despised little guy is helping to ensure there are processing plants in their ports, a place to tie-up and get fuel, and helping to make the case for Corps of Engineers channel dredging so larger boats can get in and out of port. The total number of boats in each port makes a big difference in getting these kinds of infrastructure projects done.
Social/Economic. Finally, organizations such as the Commercial Fishermen of America (CFA), along with many regional fishing groups such as PCFFA, are making a concerted push for re-establishing a national health care program for commercial fishermen (see "Fishermen's Health Care Bill Introduced," FN March 2008, www.pcffa.org/fn-mar08.htm).
However, to make it worthwhile to create such a program or programs, policy makers and administrators are going to be looking at the size of the group that would be served. If it's too small, they're not going to bother. That is largely what has already happened with many individual associations -- as their memberships shrank, so did the size of their group for health insurance coverage purposes, and consequently the interest of insurers in continuing to underwrite their policies.
A critical mass of fishermen is going to be important for health care, as well as for many other programs we may wish to establish such as fishermen's credit unions.
Part of our vision for what we'd like to see for our fisheries relates to what is landed and what happens to it afterwards. We've had a mix of types of fisheries since long before the nation's founding. There've been the large cod fleets in the North Atlantic, the Menhaden fishery along the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico, and the pollock in the North Pacific that all can be considered major fisheries -- typically conducted by larger vessels owned or operating for very large fish processing plants or multi-national corporations. These tend to be very high volume, but often low value fisheries.
There have also long been the smaller, more artisanal fisheries such as lobster in New England, and salmon and Dungeness here on the west coast. Even the halibut and longline sablefish fishery could be classified as more of a smaller boat fishery dominated principally by owner-operators. In those fisheries the emphasis has generally been on high value, making up for the relatively low volumes. This is a far more economically efficient use of the resource.
What concerns us is the fact that most west coast fish stocks are probably at or near their harvestable limit. And some may be subject to future catch reductions. For this reason, our vision should include focusing on steps to be taken to increase the market value of all of our catches in order to maintain the economic viability of these fisheries, even if future catch levels have to be reduced.
Indeed, it makes little sense just to have huge catches if little is paid per pound for each fish. Ours is a commercial fishery, after all; the bottom-line is the figure on the check, not the volume in the hold. If through better distribution or value-added marketing one can make more money with the same volume of fish, why not do it?
Our vision then is to transition as many of our fisheries as possible, including some of those currently harvested primarily for oil or meal, to human food fish available in the highest value markets, including the best restaurants. If we could transition squid from bait to an hors d'oeuvre or entrée, we certainly should be able to promote more sardine, anchovy and herring dishes at the dinner table. Likewise, if we're smarter about how we catch (especially how fast we catch) Dungeness crab, we should be able to increase the value of that catch as well.
Fish are food, to be honored and treated with respect. Our goal should be catching and producing fish that our consumers will want to savor -- for their health and flavor. The gold standard we envision for our fisheries is not MSC certification; it's having them as the centerpiece for Slow Food and featured in all the best restaurants and markets.
Another aspect of the vision we have for our future fisheries is developing a sense of place and understanding. By this we mean the preservation of our fishing history and heritage, and also access to the science and other information that is used in fishery management decision-making.
If past is prologue, if we are condemned to make the mistakes of the past when we ignore history, then preserving our own history is essential for our future. This history also includes the oral history of participants, and it includes the artifacts, even berthing and care of representative vessels with historic significance -- the last whaler, a tuna superseiner and a sardine seiner, a Monterey and a sailing Bristol Bay gillnetter, a North Pacific halibut schooner or a canoe used by Native Americans.
Fishing in the Americas has a rich history we have every right to be proud of. Native American fisheries date back to between 10,000 and 14,000 years; non-native fishing off North America dates back at least 400 years, perhaps longer if one counts the Basque cod fishing fleet Cabot already found off the continent in his voyage of 1495. Fishing fed the first European settlers and made their first colonies viable. Fishing is truly our nation's oldest industry, and still one that is important to our economy.
Our vision therefore includes places where this rich history can be collected for us to learn and pass along to future generations of fishermen to provide them an understanding of fishing traditions in their endeavors, including a sense of that place.
Together with the history, we likewise need access to the science and other such information that is the basis for how decisions about fisheries are being made. Without this access, without this information, how can we possibly understand decisions that are being made, much less participate in them? Without this information, how will we judge what is justified and what is folly?
One such tool, that we have discussed on these pages in the past, has been establishment of an ocean ecosystem resource information system, similar in concept to the successful watershed and geographic information systems (KRIS) already in place in Northern California, and parts of British Columbia and Maine. The idea is to have a system that acts as a multi-dimensional repository for all of the research and data, organizing it all and offering peer-reviewed information on what some of it means -- but all in a transparent and highly accessible form.
Thus education for fisheries has to go well beyond mere reading, writing and arithmetic to include history and science. The first three allow us to function in society, the latter two help us to understand who we are and why we are here doing this today.
Finally, our vision entails fishing communities having greater say over their own fisheries, including restoration projects, marketing, even the way they're conducted.
The lifeblood of so many fishing communities is tied to the abundance and harvest of fish stocks found off their shores. Even cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have a direct link to their fisheries that make them important to the local community.
Whether it's under the auspices of community fishing or regional fishing associations, both of which Congress provided for under the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, or whether organized outside of that framework, our vision is for much greater involvement of local fishermen, processors and other fishery-dependent entities -- all of whom constitute fishing communities -- in the direction and management of their own local fisheries.
Part of what is envisioned for community-based fishing is some form of co-operative management. Fishermen, after all, are the ones on the ocean, with the experience to help guide, not merely advise, fishery management. We're not talking about "self-regulation" or volunteerism, both guises other industries have used in their natural resources rape, burn and pillage schemes. No, we are talking rather about true co-management with government entities held to strict standards, including prohibitions on over-fishing or operations destroying fish habitat. Bringing the first hand experience of fishermen into the management process should only help to improve it.
The third leg of this part of our vision is for full-fledged fishermen-scientist collaborative research programs. This is not just fishermen or their vessels working under the direction of scientists on projects designed solely by scientists. Rather, it involves fishermen working as co-equals with scientists, helping to design and guide the projects, and also helping to inform the scientific community on what the key questions are that need to be answered.
Greater community control over local fisheries, cooperative management of those fisheries with agencies or councils, and collaboration with scientists in research and data collection we see as a more realistic and acceptable method for developing a sense of stewardship, as well as maintaining the strongest possible conservation ethic within the fishing community, for the protection of fish stocks and fisheries.
This is an outline of what we envision our fisheries could look like, what we would want them to be. This is our thinking about tomorrow. What are your thoughts? Take a moment away from reacting and think about what you'd like to see, what you'd like to act on. We are always glad to hear from you.
Zeke Grader is the PCFFA Executive Director, whose office is in San Francisco. David Bitts is a Eureka-based fisherman and current President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Glen Spain is Northwest Regional Director of the Institute for Fisheries Resources and PCFFA, headquartered in Eugene, Oregon. Pietro Parravano is a Half Moon Bay commercial fisherman and President of the Institute for Fisheries Resources. PCFFA can be reached at its San Francisco Office at PO Box 29370, SF CA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080; at its Northwest Office at PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, (541)689-2000; or by email to fish1ifr@aol.com.
I. Conditions
A. Projects Designed to meet the following four criteria
1) Maximum job creation/retention in fishing fleet (including recreational fishing businesses, tribal fisheries).
2) Intended to support sustainable fishing, stock rebuilding and, where applicable, ending any overfishing.
3) Fishing Infrastructure Preservation/Restoration/Development.
4) Long-term benefit for fish stocks and fishing communities.
B. Projects Meet "Robert Reich Test" for Funding in a Stimulus Package
1) Competitively selected.
2) Transparent funding.
3) Prohibition against any lobbying or law firm involved in procuring funds for a project from receiving any portion of stimulus grants or related funds.
C. Inclusion of fishing-related projects would depend on concurrent federal legislation to establish a long-term, sustainable and substantial revenue program (i.e., a national fishery trust fund) to support currently under-funded and unfunded national fishery needs.
II. Fish/Fishery Projects
A. Research and Restoration
1) Collaborative research projects involving fishermen and their vessels working with fishery researchers and scientists.
2) Fish and fish habitat restoration projects (e.g., salmon, oysters) utilizing fishing men and women, tribal members, and federal and/or state youth conservation programs (e.g., AmeriCorps, California Conservation Corps), and invasive species control and eradication efforts. In particular, fully fund the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), which is the federal matching funds source for a multitude of state-funded salmon habitat restoration programs that create many restoration jobs in economically depressed coastal communities.
B. Working Waterfronts
1) Projects to assist fishing communities maintain working waterfronts.
2) Fishery infrastructure preservation, restoration and development.
C. Other Projects
1) Establishment of community fishing or regional fishing associations (pursuant to Section 303(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act).
2) Establishment of marine academic consortiums, to facilitate marine and fishery education, among smaller colleges and universities, within fishing ports.
3) Establishment of collaborative research centers to facilitate and coordinate regional fisherman-scientist collaborative research/data collection projects.
4) Establishment of Laboratories in Support of Daily Fishery Management and Operations. These, which could be operated with existing research facilities, would include facilities such as genetic stock identification, and seafood testing and development laboratories.
5) Establishment of Sustainable Fishing and Farming Centers, these regional facilities would serve to support farmers and fishermen engaged in or transitioning to sustainable food production, and for public education.
6) Establishment of facilities to preserve fishing and maritime heritage, including museums or water parks to display historic fishing craft and other artifacts of the history of the nation's fisheries, including native fishing.
7) Establishment of Coastal, Ocean and Fisheries Public Education Centers.
A. Upgraded Water Treatment/Sewage Facilities. Construction of new, or upgrading of existing, water treatment and sewage facilities to meet stringent water quality standards utilizing state-of-the-art technology.
B. Pollution Control from Run-off, Other Non-Point Sources. Controlling and eliminating urban, agricultural and other non-point source polluted run-off.
C. Water Conservation, Recycling and Green Desalination. Improving or implementing water conservation and water efficiency, including technology applications, and water reuse and recycling, including assistance for "Low Impact Development" (LID), together with research and development grants for creating affordable "green" desalination technology (i.e., low energy use, no entrainment of marine or aquatic life, no discharge of toxic waste materials, such as saline brines) for purposes of treating contaminated groundwater and conversion of seawater to freshwater.
D. Converting Problem Irrigated Lands to Sustainable Food Production, Renewable Energy, Groundwater Recharge and Wildlife Habitat. This could include conversion to self-contained, recirculating pond fish farms on former irrigated lands (an eco-friendly alternative to problematic open-ocean aquaculture), wind and solar "farms."
E. Marine Sanctuary Research and Education Programs. This would involve construction of new vessels for sanctuaries now lacking their own research and education craft; funding for sanctuaries to employ fishermen and their vessels in collaborative research projects.
TO: California's Fishing Communities
FROM: California Ocean
Protection Council
DATE: November 25, 2008
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY:
The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) is hosting a competitive grants program called the California Fisheries Challenge 2009 (CFC). The CFC is will provide grants that enable California fishing communities to chart a course toward fishery reform and sustainability.
In recent years, some California's fisheries have examined new management or marketing techniques aimed at improving the environmental and economic sustainability of their fishery. The goal of this program is to offer motivated fishing communities and affiliates (including commercial and recreational fishermen, fishing organizations, processors, conservation organizations, tribes, and others) a new opportunity to develop ideas that improve the stewardship of public fishing resources while maintaining the fishing heritage of coastal communities.
Proposals may address a broad range of topics that include, but are not limited to:
The intent of the CFC is to offer fishermen and affiliates an opportunity to formulate and submit proposals with the objective of improving and sustaining long-term fishery health. The OPC envisions that this funding opportunity will help fisheries begin actively implementing their own ideas and strategies and will promote partnerships among state agencies, academics, NGOs, and the fishing industry that will be the basis for future coordination.
Projects for submission must provide a public benefit and be consistent with the OPC's mandate to foster sustainable fisheries (see California Ocean Protection Act, Sec.35650; OPC Strategic Plan, Goal E Objective 4; and the 2009-2010 Program Priorities, Sustainable Fisheries Management section).
Preference will be given to projects that:
A written proposal and budget is required for project consideration. Proposals must follow the guidelines detailed in the attachment. Applicants can request between $10,000 and $250,000 in funds. The number of projects selected will depend on the number and quality of proposals received, as well as available funding. The OPC will assemble a review committee to evaluate proposals.
This is a short-term funding opportunity and is not intended to support projects that increase personal profit at the expense of fishery health. Additionally, as a state agency, the OPC is somewhat limited in terms of types of expenses that can be covered (i.e., state funds cannot pay for food for meetings, travel expense in excess of state rates, etc.). If you would like to understand these limitations more fully before submitting a proposal, please feel free to contact staff.
Deadline for proposals is 5 PM on February 17, 2009. Submit all proposals to rfisher@scc.ca.gov.
Interested parties are encouraged to contact OPC staff to discuss project ideas prior to submitting a proposal. Staff can address comments or questions, and help refine an idea so that proposals meet the required criteria. Please direct all inquiries and proposal submissions to Cina Loarie (510-286-4092; cloarie@scc.ca.gov) or Rachelle Fisher (510-286-4172; rfisher@scc.ca.gov).
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive