Feb 4, 201211:05 AMBlog: Fish Bytes
Revisions to crab EDR program approved
SEATTLE — Final action was taken this morning to revise the Economic Data Reporting requirements for the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted a modified version of Alternative 3 recommended by the Advisory Panel and the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers.
Here is a 10-page document that outlines status quo reporting requirements as well as the alternatives considered by the council. Changes to Alternative 3 adopted by the council are noted.
The action by a unanimous vote removes a large number of reporting requirements determined to be of poor quality, redundant or of little utility to analyzing the program. For instance, reporting number of days fishing were removed from EDR requirements as that information may be obtained through Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish ticket data.
The council action was not endorsed by the Scientific and Statistical Committee, which called the alternatives under consideration a “retreat” from the basis for establishing the EDR program when the fishery was rationalized. From the SSC minutes:
“The BSAI crab rationalization program, initiated by Congressional action and elaborated by the council, was expressly framed as a social contract between the public and those private individuals and entities that were recipients of substantial economic value, embodied in tradeable IFQ and IPQ access guarantees. That social contract was founded partly on the exchanging of privately held access privileges for detailed proprietary economic data with which to understand the changes caused by rationalization (e.g., quasi-rents, share markets, crew compensation, community stability and welfare effects, wealth consolidation, behavioral changes in fishing and processing practices and behaviors, net welfare changes to the Nation). The alternatives under consideration seem to represent a retreat from the balance struck in this contract.”
One of the major elements removed from the alternatives considered was the collection of unique crew contracts and settlement sheets. Analysis of collecting the documents was approved at the October meeting in Dutch Harbor over industry objections.
The council flagged crew compensation at its five-year review in December 2010 as a concern about the program based on the declining percentage of vessel revenue paid to crew since the fishery was rationalized in 2005 — particularly the highest harvest quartile of the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery where crew who bring in the most pounds are paid less than their counterparts.
In 2008, the highest quartile of crabbers harvested about 437,000 pounds and were paid an average of $39,414. The third quartile of crew harvested about 281,000 pounds in 2008 and were paid an average of $45,426.
That trend in the fourth quartile continued in 2009, with crew who harvested 358,000 pounds of red king crab paid about $2,400 less than those who harvested 249,000 pounds.
At its December 2011 meeting, the council advanced a motion for alternatives to require active participation in the crab fishery to address absentee ownership. The measure would indirectly address the crew pay issue as the leasing of quota shares is roundly blamed for the decline in compensation, particularly in the red king crab fishery where lease rates are 70 percent or more.
The EDR revisions will collect data on leasing for “arm’s length” lease transactions, as the lease arrangements within the co-ops were deemed too difficult to track.
The SSC report perturbed several members of the council when they received the minutes Friday, who grilled chairwoman Pat Livingston for about 20 minutes over the SSC language.
Livingston said the SSC minutes reflect the “strongly held concern” of the economic members of the committee, and the SSC agreed with their desire to bring that message forward to the council.
John Henderschedt of Seattle said he saw the SSC report as an “accusation” that the council was not interested in collecting good economic data, and said he was “concerned about the tone” of the report.
Bill Tweit of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department complained that the SSC did not offer the council a “roadmap” for a way to collect better information and like Henderschedt expressed his dismay with the “tenor” of the report.
Dave Benson, also of Washington, said he was “amazed” at the SSC statement that it could not offer more meaningful comment because the council was scheduled to take final action.
Livingston noted that the SSC told the council in October that it did not believe the EDR revisions were ready to move forward, and told Benson simply, “our comments are what you see and I can’t say more than that.”
The SSC endorsed the creation of an Economic and Social Science Plan Team similar to the council’s existing biological Groundfish Plan Team and Crab Plan Team.
In response to Tweit’s analogy to the SSC work on biological models where data inputs are often flagged for review and further work, Livingston said that the council was eliminating the collection of data it deemed unreliable rather than working to make it better.
“We don’t throw out data that’s collected,” Livingston said. “We throw it back to the plan team. I think we need that kind of process.”
Also on Friday during public comment, industry representatives raised privacy concerns about turning over crew contracts and settlement sheets, suggesting that Social Security numbers, health information and emergency contact information would be at risk of becoming public if the council chose to collect them.
Several vessel owners supplied the council with form letters signed by crew asking the council not to collect the settlement sheets and contracts because their personal information could be exposed.
Under the current EDR program, and in the revised program passed this morning, blind formatting of industry reporting is maintained.
Duncan Fields of Kodiak, who made the motion in Dutch Harbor to collect the crew information, made a futile motion to re-insert the requirement for collecting contracts and settlement sheets that failed 1-10.
The members of the council who voted to approve the analysis of collecting contracts and settlement sheets in October said they did not believe the benefits in information collected would be offset by the burden on analysts from reading and entering data from hundreds of contracts and settlement sheets.
Although it will proceed with work on the active participation requirements for purchasing quota shares, it is unknown at this point when the council will review the crab rationalization program or updated economic data again.
The initial five-year review was mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The MSA does not require reviews every five years, but does require a review of each program no less frequently than once every seven years.
Andrew Jensen can be reached at andrew.jensen@alaskajournal.com.
Email
Print
Feed
