N.E. lawmakers fight Bush plan to change fishing-quota rules
WASHINGTON -- New England lawmakers will seek changes to commercial fishing legislation proposed by the Bush administration, saying the plan would make it more difficult for the region's small, locally owned fishing operations to survive.
The administration's proposals, which were sent to Congress last week, would change the way federal fishing quotas are divided up within the industry. Dozens of species of seafood from cod to clams are currently regulated by regional fishery councils established by the federal government in the 1970s to prevent overfishing.
Instead of the limits currently assigned to each fisherman, under the Bush administration plan, the councils would grant fishermen permission to catch a certain percentage of the overall quota, which would be set by region and by species. The initial allotment would depend on how much the individual fishermen had caught in the past, but they could then buy and sell the credits to other fishermen.
The proposal fits the administration's philosophy of seeking free-market approaches to federal environmental regulation, instead of simply issuing government edicts. But critics say similar trading plans in New Zealand and Canada have had the unintended consequence of creating consolidation in the fishing industry, as small fishermen sell their credits to larger corporations.
''We want there still to be fishing villages in 50 years in New England," said US Representative Thomas H. Allen, a Maine Democrat, who introduced legislation this summer along with Representatives Robert R. Simmons, a Connecticut Republican, and William D. Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, to extend greater protections to small-scale fishermen.
In New Zealand, according to critics of the president's proposal, three corporations gained control of more than 60 percent of the country's commercial fisheries after the government instituted a quota-trading system, making it nearly impossible for smaller fishermen to compete.
''What too often happens is you drive out the small operators, because they allow buying and selling of these things," said Lee Crockett, director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, a coalition of fishing industry and conservation groups that opposes the administration plan. ''It has happened in other fisheries, and our concern is that without the proper guidelines in place, [it is] going to happen in more."
Other environmental groups, though, were more welcoming of the administration's proposals.
David H. Festa, a program director at Environmental Defense, praised the Bush plan and said it would give fishermen a stake in long-term conservation efforts that they now sometimes lack, because the value of their individual allotments would rise if the stocks are well managed.
Festa said New England, with small fishing ports dotting its shores, has historically been most opposed to the trading system.
''New England has long been skeptical," Festa said, ''and that has held up progress toward the kind of programs that we really think have a lot of promise."
He said the Bush bill, along with existing antitrust legislation, offers adequate safeguards against excessive industry consolidation.
US officials have already experimented with tradable quotas for four kinds of fish: sablefish, Alaska halibut, wreckfish, and surf clams. A 2002 report by the Government Accountability Office found that in each case, the credits had stabilized the fishery, but had also led to industry consolidation.
''You might have an economically more efficient industry" with the tradable quotas, Allen said, ''but it would do lasting damage to the cultural heritage of New England."
