{"id":9333,"date":"2016-11-01T19:25:20","date_gmt":"2016-11-01T19:25:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.environment-hawaii.org\/?p=9333"},"modified":"2018-06-14T22:55:06","modified_gmt":"2018-06-14T22:55:06","slug":"council-lobbies-for-direct-compensation-to-those-hurt-by-monument-expansion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=9333","title":{"rendered":"Council Lobbies for Direct Compensation\u00a0To Those Hurt by Monument Expansion"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"boundaries\"<\/a>The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council is wasting no time seeking financial compensation for those in the fishing industry who may claim they have been harmed by President Barack Obama\u2019s expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in late August.<\/p>\n

At its meeting last month \u2014 shortly after being advised by counsel of restrictions on lobbying legislatures or the president for funds \u2014 the council decided to send a letter to Obama highlighting the expansion\u2019s impacts on Hawai`i fishing and seafood industries and indigenous communities and requesting that the Department of Commerce mitigate those impacts through \u201cdirect compensation to fishing sectors.\u201d<\/p>\n

The council\u2019s letter will also include a request that the ban on commercial fishing in the expansion area \u2014 which includes the waters between 50 and 200 nautical miles off the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands \u2014 be phased in. The letter will also ask for \u201cother programs that would directly benefit those impacted from the monument expansion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Compensation for fisheries closures in federal waters is not unprecedented. In 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reimbursed the Hawai`i Longline Association $2.2 million for legal expenses tied to the group\u2019s lawsuit opposing a temporary closure of the swordfish fishery. Also, as part of the same $5 million federal grant that funded the reimbursement, lobster and bottomfish fishers displaced by the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve established by president Bill Clinton also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct compensation and funds for fisheries research.<\/p>\n

With regard to the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, after it was first established by President George W. Bush in 2006, then-Sen. Daniel Inouye inserted an earmark in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 that provided more than $6 million to NMFS for a \u201ccapacity reduction program.\u201d That program allowed vessel owners with permits to fish for lobster or bottomfish in the NWHI to be paid the economic value of their permits if they chose to stop fishing well ahead of the date all commercial fishing was to end in the monument, June 15, 2011.<\/p>\n

Unlike the bottomfish and lobster fisheries, however, the Hawai`i longline fishery catches the vast majority of its haul in waters outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the NWHI. And while the reserve and original monument designations permanently closed the door on the former two fisheries, this year\u2019s monument expansion merely forces the longline fleet to shift its effort eastward at a time when it\u2019s already doing that on its own.<\/p>\n

Even so, Wespac is pushing for a compensation package for fishers inconvenienced by the monument expansion. Whether or not it\u2019s the council\u2019s place to ask for it is questionable. In his ethics presentation to the council given shortly before it voted to ask Obama for money for the \u201cfishing sector,\u201d National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) general counsel Fred Tucher advised the council that it cannot use its federal grant to lobby any legislature or the executive branch for more money. The council could be in the clear since it\u2019s asking for money not for itself, but for others. In any case, co-counsel Elena Onaga told the council to run the letter by NOAA\u2019s financial assistance attorneys before sending it out.<\/p>\n

Economic Losses<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Just how much, if anything, should the federal government shell out to compensate these \u201cfishing sectors\u201d? Justin Hospital, head of the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center\u2019s (PIFSC) socioeconomics program, has done a preliminary analysis of what the economic impacts of the monument expansion might be. In a presentation to the council\u2019s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) last month, he described the maximum direct economic losses likely to be suffered by the Hawai`i deep-set and shallow-set longline fleets.<\/p>\n

Between 2010 and 2015, the fleets caught 9.2 percent of their total pounds in the EEZ surrounding the NWHI, he said. In the monument expansion area, the fleets caught less than seven percent of their total pounds.<\/p>\n

Hospital\u2019s data suggest that the expansion will affect the shallow-set fleet, which targets swordfish, more than it will the deep-set fleet, which targets bigeye tuna. The swordfish fleet got about 10 percent of its revenue from the expansion area, while the bigeye tuna fleet got about 6.2 percent of its revenue there, he said. In total, the two fleets would lose about $7.8 million in revenue if their effort in the expansion area ended altogether, he said.<\/p>\n

With regard to indirect economic losses, he suggested that related industries stood to lose $9 million, household income losses could reach $4.25 million, 75 jobs could be lost, as well as about half a million in tax revenue.<\/p>\n

Hospital emphasized that all of his projections should be considered the \u201cupper bounds\u201d of potential economic impacts of the expansion. \u201cTo achieve these, we\u2019re to assume this fish is not replaced anywhere else. This is not the case. Fishermen can fish elsewhere, but to move elsewhere, there are costs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

According to PIFSC, the average cost of a deep-set trip between 2004 and 2014 was $27,842 and an average shallow-set trip cost $53,494. Net revenues per trip were $34,093 and $34,055, respectively.<\/p>\n

For the past few years, the Hawai`i longline fleet has had to move its effort outside the U.S. EEZ for nearly half the year because it has hit its international quota for bigeye in the Western and Central Pacific. How much more the monument expansion will increase costs associated with shifting effort remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese trip costs can be monitored over time to track any added costs [but] could be confounded by quota issues as well,\u201d said Dr. Minling Pan, an SSC member and a colleague of Hospital\u2019s at PIFSC.<\/p>\n

Hospital told the SSC that his program will monitor trip costs, revenues, and other economic performance indicators to help discern continuing impacts of the expansion. The full council, however, wanted immediate answers. At its meeting held a week after the SSC met, Wespac asked PIFSC\u2019s socioeconomic program to submit by the end of last month its analysis of the monument expansion\u2019s impact on Hawai`i\u2019s longline fleet and broader fishing and seafood industries.<\/p>\n

Concerned that the monument expansion will perhaps increase fishing pressure on yellowfin tuna, the council also asked PIFSC to analyze the change in longline effort around the Main Hawaiian Islands due to the monument expansion in relation to troll-caught yellowfin.<\/p>\n

Seth Hostmeyer, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts\u2019 Global Ocean Legacy, told Environment Hawai`i <\/i>that he\u2019d like to see proof of any economic losses in the fishing sector first. He pointed out that in 2014, Wespac representatives argued that the establishment of the Pacific Remote Island Area Marine National Monument would be devastating to the Hawai`i longline fleet, yet after the monument was created, the fleet had a record catch.<\/p>\n

\u201cTheir messages aren\u2019t adding up,\u201d he said, adding that he doubted there will be any evidence of economic harm as a result of the Papahanaumokuakea expansion. That the Hawai`i fleet recently hit its bigeye tuna quota in record time and is seeking to increase quota transfers from Pacific island territories proves that it is confident it\u2019s going to continue to catch a lot of fish, he said.<\/p>\n

Horstmeyer speculated that even if there were proof of some economic loss, it\u2019s \u201chighly unlikely\u201d the federal government will provide financial compensation. In the past, such funds reached Hawai`i via earmarks, which have since been banned. He said in today\u2019s Congress, getting new money into the budget is challenging. What\u2019s more, arguing for compensation would be \u201chard to get when you\u2019re paying your crew 70 cents an hour or wages certainly below minimum wage,\u201d he said, citing a recent Associated Press report on poor working conditions suffered by some of the Hawai`i longline fleet\u2019s foreign crew. Paying crews the federal minimum wage might cost more than whatever additional fuel might be required as a result of the monument expansion, Horstmeyer said.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"screenshot-2016-10-17-14-03-00\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"screenshot-2016-10-17-14-03-23\"<\/a><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Council to Draft<\/b><\/p>\n

Monument Fishing Rules<\/b><\/p>\n

About a week before President Obama signed the proclamation establishing the monument expansion area, Wespac had proposed alternative schemes that would fully protect the sea floor and the historic World War II relics, as well as the northern half of the waters surrounding the NWHI. But they would have allowed longlining to continue around Necker, French Frigate Shoals, and Gardner pretty much as it has been. The president ultimately chose to stick with the configuration proposed by Sen. Brian Schatz, making more than 60 percent of the waters around the Hawaiian archipelago off limits to commercial fishing.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018This is the darkness and blackness’ was certainly my feeling after the expansion,\u201d Wespac National Environmental Policy Act coordinator Eric Kingma told the council\u2019s SSC last month. Still, he continued, \u201cIt\u2019s a new day. The monument happened, the expansion happened, and now we\u2019re moving on.\u201d<\/p>\n

As hard as Wespac fought against the expansion, the agency is now responsible for recommending to NOAA fishing regulations for the area. The August 26 proclamation establishing the expansion area gives the secretaries of Commerce and Interior three years to develop regulations implementing its directives. In addition to banning commercial fishing, those directives allow for non-commercial fishing, so long as the fish caught aren\u2019t sold, bartered, or traded. Native Hawaiian traditional, customary, cultural, subsistence, spiritual, and religious practices \u2014 which may include some fishing \u2014 are also allowed.<\/p>\n

At the council\u2019s SSC meeting, member Craig Severance suggested that customary exchange be allowed as it is in other monuments.<\/p>\n

\u201cCustomary exchange means the non-market exchange of marine resources between fishermen and community residents, including family and friends of community residents, for goods, and\/or services for cultural, social, or religious reasons. Customary exchange may include cost recovery through monetary reimbursements and other means for actual trip expenses, including but not limited to ice, bait, fuel, or food, that may be necessary to participate in fisheries in the western Pacific,\u201d according to a NOAA fisheries compliance guide.<\/p>\n

In the Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll marine national monuments, customary exchange is allowed under a non-commercial fishing permit. Customary exchange \u201chelps to preserve traditional, indigenous, and cultural fishing practices, on a sustainable basis,\u201d the guide states. Customary exchange by fishermen fishing under a recreational charter permit is prohibited. With regard to the Papahanaumokuakea monument expansion, Severance said the council may need supporting data if the consensus is to employ that concept.<\/p>\n

Bartering \u2014 which is prohibited \u2014 seems similar to customary exchange, which has been criticized by some in the past as a means to subvert commercial fishing bans. Severance, however, argued, \u201cbarter implies a negotiated cost. Customary exchange is exchanging with family, friends \u2026 It\u2019s not barter, it\u2019s culture.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wespac executive director Kitty Simonds, however, seemed more concerned with developing regulations for fishing by native Hawaiians.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think where we\u2019ll have a problem is \u2018native Hawaiian.\u2019 The Hawaiians won\u2019t like it. They are looking to a government to government agreement. The complexity is with the Hawaiian community,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

At the full council meeting, members voted to direct staff to begin drafting options to amend the Hawai`i and pelagics Fishery Ecosystem Plans that include draft regulations that would:<\/p>\n