nfcc: national fisheries conservation center

Unalaska Locals Are Wary of ITQs
By Bob Storrs

Recently, the folks at the National Fisheries Conservation Center asked me to explain why most of the local fishermen in Unalaska have been so adamantly opposed to Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) and similar access-limiting scenarios. I guess the answer lies in the old adage, "Twice burned, once stupid."

As a quota holder, I've certainly felt the benefits of the halibut/sablefish program, but as a member of my community I've also seen a very dark side of these systems.

Unalaska has been in existence for twice as long as the pyramids, and every Aleut family in this town has fished virtually all the species at their doorstep. However, due to design flaws in how salmon permits were issued and halibut quota was allocated, almost all of these families were denied participation in those fisheries once access was limited.

In contrast, other fishermen radically upped their effort during the qualification period, thereby securing, at our expense, their share of our once-public resource. Not only did effort increase during the qualification period; enforcement officials cited many vessels for fishing beyond the openings. Most of the offenders got away with it. Many of the worst stewards of the resource were thus rewarded.

Only after we found our voice and became politically active were folks in our town, in alliance with other communities, conservationists, and disenfranchised crewmen able to somewhat slow the rush to gain ownership of other species. Sometimes this involved going up against large corporate interests.

These interests nearly eliminated small-scale participation in our western Alaska cod fishery through their pursuit of an ITQ program. They lobbied the North Pacific Council for many years to design an ITQ program that would award quota to those who fished for cod during a period of time when the price offered for cod was so low that it was unprofitable for anyone other than large-scale trawlers to pursue that species.

This proposed "window period" for inclusion in the program didn't recognize the participation of most of the elders in Unalaska, Akutan, and Nikolski who jigged and handlined cod from dories long before a trawl was ever set in the Bering Sea. Had the ITQ system been implemented, it would have resulted in windfall profits for the trawl fleet, and would have forever sanctified high volume unselective fishing practices, while eliminating all but a few pot, jig, and shore-based long line vessels.

Fortunately, we were able to raise public and congressional awareness, and secure in the last Magnuson reauthorization a measure of deference to fishery-dependent communities, as well as to entry-level and small boat fishermen.

The MSFCMA's eighth National Standard requires that fishery managers provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities to the extent practicable. This provision forced managers to consider our interests in the development of the groundfish license limitation system that is in effect today.

In addition, section 303 of the law says that any new IFQ program must "consider the allocation of a portion of the annual harvest in the fishery for entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, and crew members who do not hold or qualify for individual fishing quotas."

Also within that reauthorization was a moratorium on new systems, during which time the National Research Council was to conduct a study of ITQ systems worldwide, and come up with a list of recommendations regarding the implementation--or not--of any future programs. That study has been completed and is there for us to make use of.

At the forefront of the NRC recommendations is the following:

"The biological, social, and economic objectives of each fishery management plan (and how a limited access program including IFQ's [Individual Fishing Quotas] will achieve the objectives) should be specified clearly through a process that invites broad participation by stakeholders."

Stakeholders are not only those who stand to benefit economically; we must remind ourselves that we are dealing with a public resource possibly about to go private.

Depending upon whether a person or a resource stands to gain or lose, ITQs are either like diamonds or herpes in that they are forever. There has never been a case where a fishery, one privatized, has ever been taken back into public custody. There are no second chances in this giveaway.

That's why it is critically important that the moratorium remain in place until Congress--through an open public process--establishes clear, legally binding requirements for program design. Programs must move beyond the current trend towards corporatized fisheries, and modify our practices to achieve goals for conservation and for coastal communities. Access should be awarded to fishermen who minimize bycatch and prevent damage to the sea floor, and management should support the continued existence of independent fishing families.

Only after such guarantees are in place will the folks out here in Unalaska feel like they might not get burned yet one more time by parties far beyond our reach.

Bob Storrs is Vice President of Unalaska Native Fisherman's Association, a member of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, and captain of the F/V Flying Oosik in Unalaska, Alaska.