West Coast Trawl Catch Shares Development

How did we get here and where do we go now?

Lessons Learned

Pacific Ground fish Basics: The Resource

Federally managed

Ground fish FMP covers over 90 speciesRockfish – 64 species, 5 overfishedFlatfish – 12 species, 1 overfishedRoundish – 6 species, 1 overfishedSharks and SkatesOther (ratfish, etc)

Management Driven By Weak Stocks

Overfished SpeciesWidow RockfishCanary RockfishYellow eye RockfishDark blotched

RockfishBoccaccioCow codPacific Ocean PerchPetrale Sole

Pacific Ground fish Basics: Fisheries Sectors

TribalNon Tribal

Commercial Limited Entry Trawl Fixed Gear

Commercial Open AccessRecreational

Trawl Fishery BasicsTwo distinct fisheries, 4 sectors

Non-whiting “traditional bottomtrawl”

Whiting (mid-water)ShoresideMothershipCatcher Processor

Drivers For Catch Share Development in Trawl Fishery

Bycatch ConcernsOverfished speciesRegulatory Discards

Poor Economic PerformanceCost/Earnings Study

showed on average zero profit

Declared a disaster in 2000

OvercapitalizationBuyback – sense would

ease the initial allocation

Trawl Landings and Revenue DistributionLandings

Non whit-ingSS whit-ingMSCP

Revenue

Non whit-ingSS Whit-ingMSCP

Total: 241,807 mtTotal: $81.1 million

Trawl Fleet177 trawl endorsed limited entry permitsApprox 120 vessels actively fish non whitingShore side whiting: approx 35 vessels, at

least one third also fish in Mothership fisheryApprox 20 catcher vessels deliver to 5-6

mothershipsCatcher-processors 6-9 vessels participate

annually

Catch Statistics (2008)Landings (mt) Revenue (million $)

Non whiting 24,271 31.5

Shoreside whiting 50,787 11.58

Mothership 57,685 13.16

Catcher Processor 109,062 24.88

Goals and ObjectivesOverarching Goal

Create and implement a capacity rationalization plan that increases net economic benefits, creates individual economic stability, provides for full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, considers environmental impacts, and achieves individual accountability of catch and bycatch

Goals and Objectives1. Provide a mechanism for total catch accounting. 2. Provide for a viable, profitable, and efficient groundfish

fishery. 3. Promote practices that reduce bycatch and discard

mortality and minimize ecological impacts. 4. Increase operational flexibility. 5. Minimize adverse effects from an IFQ program on fishing

communities and other fisheries to the extent practical. 6. Promote measurable economic and employment benefits

through the seafood catching, processing, distribution elements, and support sectors of the industry.

7. Provide quality product for the consumer. 8. Increase safety in the fishery

Timeline of Development2003 Council announces control date and

establishes the Trawl IQ Committee2004 Began scoping – very limited budget

available2006 Phase one EIS development with some

alternatives2007 Refined analysis – Council received full

funding for development of alternatives2008 Preliminary DEIS distributed for public

comment in early fall, November Council adopts final preferred alternative, NMFS begins work on draft regs

Timeline for Development April 2009 Council makes final decisions on

sector allocation (Amendment 21)June 2009 Council completes “trailing

actions” and directs staff to complete DEIS and other necessary documents

Summer 2009 LE Permit holders received unofficial estimate of quota share allocation

Sept/Nov 2009 Council reconsiders and modifies allocation of canary rockfish to address unforeseen consequence

TimelineJanuary 2010 DEIS public comment period closedSecretary approves/disapproves program –

summer 2010Three rule draft/final regulations must be

completed by fall 20101st rule: Collection of ownership data – completed2nd rule: Regs for main body of program –

scheduled for deeming by Council at March meeting3rd rule: Regs for monitoring, cost recovery etc

Quota application/issuance – Fall 2010Program implemented Jan 1, 2011

Catch Share ProgramCatcher processor – Continuation of

Voluntary CoopMothership – Cooperatives with annual

processor (Mothership) affiliationShoreside Whiting and Non Whiting – IFQ

Program20% initial allocation of harvester quota to

processors based on processing history for whiting

Non whiting 90% to permit holders, initial allocation based on catch history with “equal sharing” of buyback history

10% Adaptive Management Quota -

IFQ ProgramConcerns and Related Program Design ElementsConcern Program Design Element

Excessive Consolidation Accumulation Limits – species specific, smaller for constraining stocksVessel use caps – amount of quota pounds that can be put on one vessel

Excessive Control Control rules Divestiture

Communities AMPCFAs (in progress)

Overfished Species Complex initial allocation methodologyLow accumulation limitsCouncil encouraging risk pools100% catch accounting and monitoring

New Entrants Small divisions of quota shareAMP

IFQ ProgramConcerns and Related Program Design ElementsConcern Program Design Element

Minimize habitat impacts Gear Switching

Providing operational flexibility 30 day to balance accountCarry over/underQS and QP can be leasedQS freely transferable after 2 year moratorium on transfers

Lessons learnedProgram design matters and can be

overshadowed by initial allocation concernsImportant to bring back to goals and objectivesVisioning exercise: What do you want the

fishery to look like in 10 years and how can catch shares be designed to help achieve that vision

Important that design committee have all relevant interests represented

Lessons LearnedDon’t wait to the end to plan effective

monitoring/tracking program develop costs estimates and trade offs early on engage stakeholders in the design – if

responsibility to fund lies partially (or solely) with industry then they need to be included in design

Take a holistic view and look at whether a “ramp up approach is needed – or a new system….important to avoid redundancies

Lessons learnedProvide adequate financial and human

resources throughout the development process – a transition phase and then and beyond

Understand that the program will not be perfect Is it moving in the right direction?Expect to be making changes to improve

How implementation of the Catch Share Policy could have helped west coast design processReduce technical and administrative

impediments to designing catch share programResolving outstanding questions on application

of MSA requirements to proposed design. Guidance on Community provisions in MSA Processor allocation of harvester shares based on

processing history – guidance on when is/is not appropriate

What exactly should be under the umbrella of 3% cap on cost recovery?

Enforcement protocols – relationship to efficiencies