Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/06/2014 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Community Fishing Associations - Establishing a Successful Community Based Model to Meet the Specific Goals and Objectives of a Gulf of Alaska Catch Share Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 6, 2014
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Austerman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: COMMUNITY FISHING ASSOCIATIONS - ESTABLISHING A
SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY BASED MODEL TO MEET THE SPECIFIC GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES OF A GULF OF ALASKA CATCH SHARE PROGRAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
THERESA PETERSON, Kodiak Outreach Coordinator
Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation entitled "Community
Fishing Associations."
TERRY HAINES
Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of the
presentation on Community Fishing Associations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:07:10 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Representatives
Kreiss-Tomkins, Gattis, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representative Austerman was also in attendance.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
^PRESENTATION: Community Fishing Associations - Establishing a
successful community based model to meet the specific goals and
objectives of a Gulf of Alaska Catch Share Program
PRESENTATION: Community Fishing Associations - Establishing a
successful community based model to meet the specific goals and
objectives of a Gulf of Alaska Catch Share Program
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on Community Fishing Associations.
10:07:33 AM
THERESA PETERSON, Kodiak Outreach Coordinator, Alaska Marine
Conservation Council (AMCC), stated that Community Fishing
Associations were a means to strengthen the fishing communities
in Alaska during the Gulf of Alaska catch share program for the
trawl fleet. She explained that this presentation, slide 1,
"Presentation Overview," would be about the Gulf of Alaska trawl
bycatch management program, and it would look at lessons learned
from past programs, as Alaska has had decades of experience with
these catch share programs. She will discuss Community Fishing
Associations and how they can help protect Alaska's coastal
communities and noted a need to keep communities "front and
center" as new program designs were discussed. She directed
attention to slide 2, "Background: Gulf of Alaska Bycatch
Management Program," and, in response to Chair Seaton, clarified
that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) was
currently designing a new program for the Gulf of Alaska geared
at reducing the bycatch. She said that, as there were
significant declines in Chinook salmon, halibut, and Tanner
crab, bycatch reduction was imperative. She stated a desire for
a new management structure geared toward reducing the bycatch
and better utilizing the target species. She pointed out that
there were other user groups dependent on the aforementioned
species. She projected that the new structure should be a catch
share or a rationalization program, which would allocate species
based on a vessels' historical catch, and the vessels would form
a cooperative with a processor. She said that this would be an
improvement to past programs and resource management, as it
would end the race for fish and would provide individual
accountability.
10:11:48 AM
MS. PETERSON moved on to slide 3, "Lessons Learned from Past
Catch Share Programs," and noted that, although Alaska had a
tremendous amount of experience with these programs, not all of
these were positive for the coastal communities. She listed
some of the impacts to include absentee ownership of quota, high
leasing fees, rapid vessel consolidation, lower crew pay and job
loss, and an out-migration of fishing rights and wealth from the
rural fishing communities. She stated that there was the
desire, the knowledge, and the understanding to design a program
geared to the future health of the communities.
MS. PETERSON showed slide 4, "What is a CFA?," and stated that a
Community Fishing Association (CFA) was a tool to protect
communities within catch share programs, and she detailed
successful examples in Cape Cod and Morro Bay, communities which
had anchored quota to the community thereby building resilient
fishing communities. She said that direct allocations to the
fishing communities were authorized in the 2006 reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. She pointed out that the CFA model
was for allocated quota, which was leased at a reasonable rate
to the current participants and new entrants, based on the
criteria developed and designed by the CFA. She stated that the
CFA could effectively anchor the quota to the community in
perpetuity, as no other tool would ensure the quota remained in
the community. She emphasized that this would keep these
fishing rights in the community.
10:15:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about past catch share
programs and when a quota was moved from a community, where was
it moved and to what cost to the rural community.
MS. PETERSON replied that in the current catch share structures,
as an individual owned the quota rights, they could choose to
live anywhere and could use lease fees to extract revenue
through the fisheries resource.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the state management program did not
allow this, instead requiring the owner of the quota to be
onboard the boat; however, federal management programs allowed
absentee ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked that, although the quota owner could
be onboard the boat, could they live outside of Alaska. She
asked if there was a correlation with being onboard and where
someone lived.
CHAIR SEATON explained that the limited entry programs in state
waters required the owner to be onboard; however, in federal
waters the rights were attached to the vessel and the owner did
not need to be onboard.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if the permit owner was required to
be a resident of Alaska. She asked if an absentee owner was
defined as a non-resident to that specific community.
MS. PETERSON said that under the federal fisheries programs, the
owner could be a resident or non-resident. Under the current
construct for some of the federal catch share programs, it was
not necessary for the owner to be onboard during the harvest of
fish. She said that the proposed program would be significantly
different from other programs, acknowledging that there were
very distinct differences between federal and state management
of the fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked for clarification that "onboard"
required physical presence on the boat while fishing and whether
residence in the state or the community was also addressed.
CHAIR SEATON replied that these were distinct designations.
When fishing in state waters, it was not necessary to be a
resident of the state or the community, but the owner had to be
on the boat. When fishing in federal waters, the quota was
distributed to the vessel, and not to the owner, so presence was
not required.
10:19:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked about out-of-state ownership
for quota shares in other Alaska fisheries.
MS. PETERSON explained that a significant number of the vessels
that participated in the Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries were
home ported primarily in Washington and Oregon. She allowed
that there were some resident Kodiak-based trawlers, and they
had a tendency to hire local crews.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that a CFA
would be a mechanism to ensure that the right to fish would be
for an Alaska port.
MS. PETERSON expressed her agreement that a primary goal and
objective of the CFA was for the community to own the quota and
provide for the resident fleet, noting that Kodiak was one area
that depended on this activity.
10:21:28 AM
MS. PETERSON addressed slide 6, stating that the CFA provided
fishermen with an opportunity to enter the fisheries and
provided access for coastal communities. She relayed that
testimony from other communities had stated that the CFA program
would benefit significantly from an initial allocation of
fishing quota to the community, which would provide the
opportunity to maintain and build strong local business, an
ownership which the community could plan around. She emphasized
that when the community was involved in the decision making,
diversity and involvement with community values was reflected.
Turning to slide 9, "Next Steps," she said that development of
the program was at a critical crossroads. She reported that
NPFMC would commence to review the issue in April, 2014, and
then begin to refine its program design. She said that CFAs
were not currently part of this program design discussion and
emphasized that communities should have an ownership stake in
the fishing resource and a portion of the quota be considered
for anchorage in the community. She said that this allocation
should be a part of the NPFMC discussion and analysis.
10:24:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if it would help if the
council heard from the Alaska State Legislature.
MS. PETERSON expressed her agreement, acknowledging the
difficulty for tracking the major fishery policy discussions
that influenced the state future. She concluded with slide 10,
stating that CFAs presented a significant opportunity to ensure
that coastal communities retained the ability to access their
fisheries. She said that the Gulf of Alaska had many small
communities which were dependent on access to the fisheries
resource, and this is an opportunity to design a program that is
best for Alaska communities.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged the importance of maintaining the
health of coastal communities across Alaska and the committee's
responsibility to support that.
10:27:06 AM
TERRY HAINES, Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC), shared
that he had also served on the Kodiak City Council for the past
10 years. He stated that his decisions were determined by a
practical concern for "dollars and cents," and he offered an
example from the crab industry for what can happen to the
economic viability of a local area when absentee owners were
allowed. He reported that the local fisherman received 15
percent of the profit with 85 percent being paid directly to the
owner, even with no active participation. He declared that the
risk was shifted to the working Alaskan fisherman, with the
benefit to the non-participating quota share owner, who could
take the value outside the state. He stated that an initial
allocation under the CFA concept could anchor a lot of the
fishery resource to the local community. He said that this
program discussion was only for the trawl-caught cod and pollock
fisheries. This would ensure the continued economic viability
and robust economy for the community. He noted that many rural
communities were struggling and CFAs could support them. He
asked that the governor's office put consideration of CFAs "on
the table" as an endorsement for continued analysis by the
communities. He said that the current plans did not allow for
this program to be considered.
10:30:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his belief that CFAs
simply offered the opportunity for Gulf of Alaska fish to be
caught by Alaskans and to recognize the economic benefit from
staying in state. He suggested that the legislature and House
Special Committee on Fisheries state its support to the NPFMC
for the CFA program.
10:31:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS surmised that a quota owner takes a risk,
even though it may not be a daily risk. She asked that Mr.
Haines elaborate on the risk.
MR. HAINES explained that the person who was transitioning into
the fishery had to take a large financial risk to buy in, but
during the initial distribution of the allocation, these permits
to the resource will be given based on the risk taken to this
point. He explained that the boat typically had a 40 percent
share, with the remainder divided among the participants. He
expressed his agreement with this percent based on the risk in
boat ownership. He explained that the current program allowed a
permit owner to have other boats and fishermen work the permit,
and he said that this "is the sinister part of the program." He
added that, although Alaskans were doing the fishing, they were
not receiving the value, but a much lower compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opined that it sounded like
sharecropping.
MR. HANES replied that this term had often been applied to
describe the current program.
CHAIR SEATON declared that a goal of the committee was for
Alaska resources to benefit Alaskans, for Alaskans to have the
opportunity to participate in the fisheries, and to maintain
resilient coastal communities.
10:34:40 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:34
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CFA handout.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2014 10:00:00 AM |
community fishing associations |
| CFA Presentation to House Fisheries 3.6.14 FINAL.pptx |
HFSH 3/6/2014 10:00:00 AM |
cfa |