Prevent AFA Encroachment in A.80
At the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) meeting in Anchorage this week, an issue very important to our sector (Amendment 80) is being addressed today before the Advisory Panel (AP) and Saturday before the full Council. As we sought regulatory language (Amendment 97) that would allow us (A.80 sector) to replace our vessels, a competing sector took that opportunity to try to encroach upon our fishery. The issue is whether to allow American Fisheries Act (AFA) pollock vessels that already have access to approximately two thirds (2/3rds) of the biomass of the Bering Sea to bring their surplus capacity vessels into our sector and compete with us in the Amendment 80 (non-pollock groundfish sector). We supported the final action taken by the NPFMC on Amendment 97 to allow vessel replacement in the Amendment 80 sector and the implementation of the regulations in the proposed rule. However, we do not support the new policy and legal opinion first announced in the preamble to the proposed rule and further referenced in the final rule and associated discussion paper that in any way opens the possibility of AFA vessels participating in our sector.
At the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) meeting in Anchorage this week, an issue very important to our sector (Amendment 80) is being addressed today before the Advisory Panel (AP) and Saturday before the full Council. As we sought regulatory language (Amendment 97) that would allow us (A.80 sector) to replace our vessels, a competing sector took that opportunity to try to encroach upon our fishery. The issue is whether to allow American Fisheries Act (AFA) pollock vessels that already have access to approximately two thirds (2/3rds) of the biomass of the Bering Sea to bring their surplus capacity vessels into our sector and compete with us in the Amendment 80 (non-pollock groundfish sector). We supported the final action taken by the NPFMC on Amendment 97 to allow vessel replacement in the Amendment 80 sector and the implementation of the regulations in the proposed rule. However, we do not support the new policy and legal opinion first announced in the preamble to the proposed rule and further referenced in the final rule and associated discussion paper.
This radical departure from the policy and legal advice provided by NMFS through the deliberation process on this rule threatens to turn this action into one that will destroy the existing Amendment 80 companies, as opposed to allowing them to build a modern efficient fishing fleet. See our AFVRP (American Fishing Vessel Replacement Project) for more information on our efforts on this behalf.
Our sector has long relied on the public process upon which the Fisheries Council system is based to develop our fisheries management programs. The sector worked with the NPFM Council for over ten years to develop the rules for the cooperative system that we now work under, as established in Amendment 80. The A.80 fleet then worked through the Council system to develop a plan for upgrading our fishing fleet. This process, which has taken over four years, culminated in Amendment 97. During this entire process, NMFS advised the sector and the pubilc at large that AFA Pollock Vessels would not qualify for the Amendment 80 fishery. At no point during the discussion and debate did anyone affiliated with the AFA fleet suggest that their vessels should be eligible to participate in our fisheries.
Several companies, including Fishermen's Finest are considering having new vessels built to replace our aging fleet. There is considerable interest in the maritime industry to participate in these projects; however, when you analyze a new build with the competition of low-cost, mostly foreign rebuilt existing vessels that can augment their income with Pollock production, it is likely that building a new vessel is impracticable. The Council has the ability to put this question to bed at the current meeting in Anchorage.
We encourage the Council to vote to not allow AFA encroachment in the Amendment 80 sector.
By doing so, they will encourage new vessel construction and bring our sector and our nations fishing infrastructure up to date with state of the art, safe, and green NEW fishing vessels. An important side benefit of this is the jobs and economic activity these new vessels could bring to our ailing economy.
We did not ask for pollock vessels to participate in our sector and we do not want the unfair, one way proposal (benefiting only AFA).
Please contact us should you need any further information or clarification on this very important issue and we encourage you to reach out to your Council members and politicians and encourage them to protect Amendment 80, a success story in the making of rationalized fisheries. Revitalize our economy; create jobs.
***FRIDAY UPDATE: The Advisory Panel voted 12 to 7 with one abstention this morning as follows (we encourage the Council to follow suit):
The AP believes that further analysis of allowing AFA-qualified catcher-processors to replace Amendment 80 vessels is unnecessary. The action will destabilize the North Pacific fisheries and is contrary to longstanding Council policy of protecting other sectors from harm from rationalized fisheries. The AP therefore recommends that the Council take no further action on this issue.
***SUNDAY UPDATE: The Council did not take the AP's recommendation and unfortunately voted 6 to 5 to further analyze the potential of utilizing named AFA (American Fisheries Act) pollock vessels in the non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries.
Click Prev - <href="ships-blog/17-blog/130-prevent-afa-encroachment-in-a80?start=1" >Next >> more below for the Council motion and vote results
Council motion on AFA vessels replacing A80 vessels; October 7, 2012
Motion by John Henderschedt, 2nd by Craig Cross
Purpose and Need
During its development of Amendment 97, the Council was advised by NOAA General Counsel that the Capacity Reduction Program legislation prohibited AFA catcher/processors from serving as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. Accordingly, the Council did not consider that option. NOAA GC recently revisited the issue and concluded that AFA catcher/processors may serve as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. Because that revised opinion is contrary to the advice given to the Council at the time it took final action on Amendment 97, NMFS has included a provision in the Amendment 97 Final Rule prohibiting AFA catcher/processors from serving as Amendment 80 replacement vessels.
At its June 2012 meeting, the Council requested a discussion paper from NMFS on the issue. NMFS presented its paper at this meeting. In the paper, NMFS observes that allowing AFA catcher/processors to serve as Amendment 80 replacement vessels could improve safety and efficiency in, and reduce the capacity of, the Amendment 80 fleet in less time and at lower cost than new construction. NMFS also recognizes the concerns of current Amendment 80 participants about the potential effects of allowing AFA catcher/processors to operate in the Amendment 80 sector. NMFS notes that it does not have enough information at this time to adequately assess the potential benefits and concerns associated with AFA catcher/processors serving as Amendment 80 vessels.
Because of the significance of this issue to participants in the Amendment 80 and AFA sectors, move that Council staff analyze the following options:
1) Status quo – continue the prohibition on AFA catcher/processors serving as Amendment 80 replacement vessels.
2) Allow AFA catcher/processors to serve as Amendment 80 vessels:
- On an annual basis or one-time permanent election;
- Subject to all AFA sideboards except for BSAI harvesting sideboards on species and PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector.
- Subject to all other regulations applicable to Amendment 80 vessels.
Yes: Jim Balsiger, John Henderschedt, Eric Olson, Cora Campbell, Ed Dersham, Craig Cross (6)
No: Dan Hull, Duncan Fields, Roy Hyder, Sam Cotten, Bill Tweit (5)