 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Sharing the Costs and Benefits By Rod Moore Although increasing attention is being given to rights-based fishing as a means of controlling capacity and promoting economic and biological sustainability of our fisheries, the focus has been almost exclusively on vessels. In the minds of many, a "fishery" ends when the fish reaches the dock. However, that is not the case in the real world. Fishermen are linked in a symbiotic, albeit occasionally antagonistic, relationship with seafood processors. In order to achieve the benefits of sustainability via rights-based fishing, attention must be paid to the rights and responsibilities of processors as well as fishermen. Processors provide the mechanism whereby fishermen convert their catch to money. Processors make extensive capital investments to provide this service and to generate profits for their companies. As harvesting capacity has increased over the years, so has processing capacity. By reducing harvesting capacity in a controlled fashion without a concomitant controlled reduction in processing capacity, an economic imbalance is created that has a domino effect on both harvesting and processing sectors. To give a real world example, a fisherman may be licensed and have gear for several fisheries, or may fish exclusively for one species. A processor must have the capability to handle all of the different species that will be landed, which means having workers and equipment available to match the total catch of all species. It also means that the processor is dependent on sufficient product flow (i.e., landings) to cover his costs and provide a profit. If capacity is reduced in one fishery, thereby reducing product flow perhaps because the remaining fishermen land their catch at a different port then the processor suffers a loss. If the loss is too big, the plant is shut down, thereby depriving the remaining fishermen of a market. In short, if you originally process groundfish, crab, and shrimp and then you take away one or more of these species, you shut down the plant and process nothing, leaving the remaining fishermen without a market for their fish. One practical answer to this problem is to give seafood processors some sort of "rights-based processing" option. The option chosen may not be the same for every fishery, because every fishery is different. For example, in some cases you might want to establish a cooperative arrangement tying processors and boats together, similar to what has been done in the Alaskan pollock fishery. In other cases, a system of processor shares that is equivalent to vessel shares might be the way to go a system being explored in the Alaskan crab fishery. A third possibility is a processor limited access system, with transferable permits granted to processing plants. No doubt other ideas exist, but they need to be examined critically to see how they fit in the context of a particular fishery. Regardless of what option is chosen, the fact remains that fishermen and processors are connected in an economic and social community. While some opportunities exist for fishermen to market their catch independently via direct consumer sales, every day spent selling fish on the dock is a day not spent fishing. Furthermore, it is unlikely that direct sales will account for the 185,000,000 pounds of Pacific whiting (for example) landed on the Pacific coast during a three month period each year or the 30,000 pounds of yellowtail rockfish per vessel that are available every two months. We all want sustainable fisheries; we need to work together and agree on appropriate economic sharing mechanisms to obtain that sustainability. Rod Moore is executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. He also serves as Industry Vice-Chair of the Department of Commerce's Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Groundfish Advisory Panel. |