Community-based Sectors for the New England Groundfish Fishery

More documents

Recommendations

Info

system this problem could be mitigated through quota markets. An individual could simply purchase additional ACE for species for which their ACE allocation is inadequate or they could sell unused ACE. Internal trades within a sector could accomplish the same objective; however, the effective market may be thin, particularly for small sectors like the Port Clyde sector. Furthermore, for a geographically constrained sector, the species composition across vessels may not vary that much, and vessels may have less ability to vary the composition through spatial or temporal shifts of effort. Allowing trading between sectors (assuming more are created) might alleviate this problem, but current rules do not allow trading between sectors. Table 5 shows how the Port Clyde sector vessels’ catch by species-stock has changed over time as a percentage of their total catch. Table 6 shows how the Port Clyde sector vessels’ catch as a percentage of total commercial catch has changed over time. These percentages are based solely on vessel trip report data which may be quite inaccurate or at least quite different from the dealer data on which sector allocations are based. This is particularly true for species such as monkfish that are often landed only as tails. It should also be noted that the catches of windowpane flounder in the VTR data are much higher than those reported in the dealer data. The allocations to the sector, based on dealer data, provide virtually no allocation of windowpane flounder to the sector, yet the VTR data suggests that the sectors account of a relatively large share of windowpane catch, particularly in fishing years 2000-2002. Nevertheless these tables offer some indication of the relative variability over time of the sector vessels species composition and its catch relative to the total commercial catch. Table 5: Port Clyde Sector’s Species/stock Composition of Catch as a Percentage of the Sector’s Total Groundfish Catch by Fishing Year Groundfish Stock FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 GOM cod 16.9% 10.3% 5.5% 3.8% 6.4% 6.7% 4.6% 3.0% 5.0% 10.9% GOM haddock 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 2.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.8% 3.1% Hake 6.8% 6.4% 3.8% 2.5% 4.6% 4.7% 8.0% 7.2% 6.9% 6.4% Northern Monkfish 16.4% 17.4% 20.3% 25.4% 27.2% 26.2% 28.3% 29.1% 27.6% 21.4% Plaice 30.4% 30.3% 38.7% 34.6% 32.2% 30.3% 29.8% 30.3% 19.0% 18.0% Pollock 0.8% 8.8% 3.6% 2.6% 1.8% 3.0% 4.7% 4.7% 5.5% 10.8% Redfish 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.7% GOM/GB windowpane 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% 1.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% GOM winter flounder 1.3% 1.2% 0.4% 1.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Witch flounder 25.2% 23.9% 25.7% 26.5% 21.8% 21.4% 17.9% 20.4% 31.7% 26.3% Cape Cod Yellowtail flounder 1.5% 0.9% 0.7% 1.4% 2.1% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% GOM Yellowtail flounder 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Table 6: Port Clyde Sector’s Share of Total Commercial Catch by Stock and Fishing Year Based on VTR Catch Reports Groundfish Stock FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 GOM cod 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.8% 1.8% GOM haddock 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 2.3% 1.8% 1.4% 1.1% 2.4% Hake 1.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.4% 3.3% 2.9% 3.3% 1.7% 2.1% 2.3% Northern Monkfish 2.1% 3.5% 4.0% 3.3% 3.8% 3.7% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.3% Plaice 3.3% 4.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.2% 6.9% 7.5% 7.5% 5.8% 5.8% Pollock 0.1% 1.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.9% Redfish 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% 1.5% 1.7% 2.2% 2.5% 3.0% 1.9% 2.2% GOM/GB windowpane 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 9.3% 10.2% 17.3% 4.2% 3.4% 2.4% GOM winter flounder 1.1% 1.0% 0.6% 3.1% 1.5% 1.6% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Witch flounder 6.1% 7.4% 8.1% 7.2% 7.1% 6.6% 4.5% 3.5% 5.4% 4.3% Cape Cod Yellowtail flounder 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% GOM Yellowtail flounder 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% The catch composition of the Port Clyde sector has shifted toward greater reliance on monkfish and less reliance on cod over this period. In the past few years increases in pollock and redfish catch have offset decreases in plaice. Since sectors allocate a share of TACs, it is probably more important to look at how the Port Clyde sector’s share of overall commercial catch has changed over time. Comparing the early years to the later years, the sector’s share of haddock catch has 24
increased. They also have caught a larger share of the hake and plaice but a smaller share of witch flounder and winter flounder. These trends are consistent with the dealer data and the sector allocations calculated from it based on the 96-01 vs. 01-05 fishing years which were shown in Table 2. These long term trends probably reflect changes in the distribution of stocks but also regulatory changes such as rolling closures and trip limits. They also reflect changes in overall stock levels and commercial catches. Therefore it is difficult to say how easily the sector could adjust to a set of TACs that reflect older catch history (e.g. 1996-2001). Elimination of DAS limits, trip limits and rolling closures and would give sector vessels considerably more flexibility to adjust their species composition. If sector allocations were based on the earlier years it might require some spatial or temporal shifting of the sector’s effort. However, since catches for most species have been well below the target TACs, the sector TACs are likely to allow the sector to increase catches of most stocks without being constrained by TACs of stocks which they caught a smaller percentage of in the allocation years. Perhaps a more serious problem for the sector will be constraining TACs for species that are not a significant part of their landings history (as recorded in dealer data) and are probably taken primarily as incidental catch when targeting other species. For species such as yellowtail flounder, windowpane flounder and winter flounder, the sector will receive very small TACs. Their landings, while small in absolute magnitude, have been and are likely to continue to be quite variable in percentage terms over time. The sector may find itself constrained by these TACs that are of little importance to their overall profitability unless they can find ways to avoid them. Again, spatial and temporal shifts in effort may mitigate this problem, but this may result in reductions in efficiency if the vessels are required to forgo high catch rates of their primary target species in order to avoid these other stocks. Allowing sectors to trade ACE during the fishing year could be quite beneficial in this case, particularly if the distribution of these stocks is shifting from year to year causing relative catch rates in different areas to change. 3.2 Portland Community-based Groundfish Sectors In my initial discussions with fishermen and boat owners in Portland about the idea of a community-based sector and sectors in general, there was limited interest in sectors as a management system and some misconceptions about how they would operate. Most people I spoke with were skeptical about whether sectors would deliver economic benefits sufficient to outweigh the costs and risks associated with developing sectors. Most also assumed sectors would necessarily operate in a way similar to the GB Hook sector which sets monthly TACs that are fished competitively by its members. They had not contemplated an operational plan that subdivided the sector allocation amongst its individual members on the basis of the catch history each brought to the sector. The idea of setting up an individual allocation system in the sector’s operating plan with trading of ACE allowed between sector members was deemed a more desirable or acceptable way of operating the sector by most of the individuals I spoke with who expressed interest in this form of management. The motivations for considering sectors expressed by permit holders were primarily related to their own profitability. While most of the individuals did not express great enthusiasm for sector management, many, though not all, also agreed that the current system was seriously undermining their economic viability and that sectors might offer the possibility of improving their profitability through greater ability to access stocks for which catches are currently well below 25
Page 1 and 2: Community-based Sectors for the New
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6: Community leaders in Portland and P
Page 7 and 8: of community-based permit banks. Th
Page 9 and 10: 1.0 Introduction The groundfish fis
Page 11 and 12: Although Amendment 13 effectively e
Page 13 and 14: somewhat vague on how the allocatio
Page 15 and 16: 2.2 Experience with Existing Sector
Page 17 and 18: me to explore the idea further and
Page 19 and 20: period is that which was used to de
Page 21 and 22: shown above in Table 2. Revenue pro
Page 23 and 24: Table 3a: Port Clyde Sector Revenue
Page 25: ecruitment and could be either high
Page 29 and 30: 3.2.1 Strawman Sector Structure and
Page 31 and 32: Table 8: Portland Sectors A and B V
Page 33 and 34: discussed earlier these price proje
Page 35 and 36: Table 9b: Portland Sector A Revenue
Page 37 and 38: Table 9d: Portland Sector B Revenue
Page 39 and 40: Table 10b: Portland Sector A Revenu
Page 41 and 42: Table 11b: Portland Sector B Specie
Page 43 and 44: vessels would be leased to sector v
Page 45 and 46: is ostensibly to reduce excess capa
Page 47 and 48: Table 15: Projected Total Revenue,
Page 49 and 50: later. However, rolling baselines c
Page 51 and 52: 4.4 Communities without Catch Histo
Page 53 and 54: opportunities for consolidation of
Page 55 and 56: References Alexander, Yvette 2006.M
Page 57 and 58: Appendix A: Landings and revenue pr
Page 59 and 60: Appendix B: Groundfish Price Model
Page 61 and 62: Appendix C: Sector Proposals Submit
Page 63 and 64: Port Clyde Community Sector Glen Li
Page 65 and 66: Full Retention All fish caught 1. e
Page 67 and 68: Reasons for Existence: 1. end overf
Page 69 and 70: Gloucester Fixed Gear Sector Peter
Page 71 and 72: New Bedford Channel Trawl Sector Ri
Page 73 and 74: Point Judith / Southern New England
Page 75: Pier 6 Initiative Michael Walsh Req

Community-based Sectors for the New England Groundfish Fishery

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?