Social/Community Impact Assessment Discussion

Presentation to

Pacific Fishery Management Council Workshop on Trawl IQs

Mike Downs

April 2006

Social/Community Impact Assessment

SIA two-pronged approach Summary tables based on quantitative

information; presented in body of EIS/RIR; focuses on distribution of sectors across communities

Detailed community context information; presented in technical appendix; focuses on community engagement and dependency

Social/Community Impact Assessment

Balance of quantitative and qualitative Limits of available information Range, direction, and likely order of

magnitude of social and community impacts

Social/Community Impact Assessment

Background and Methodology NEPA (social and economic effects) MSA National Standard 8 (engaged,

dependent, sustained) Executive Order 12898

(environmental justice)

Social/Community Impact Assessment

Community Variability Location and Historical Ties to the

Fishery Community Socioeconomic

Structures Engagement, Dependency,

Resiliency, Vulnerability

Social/Community Impact Assessment

Social Impact Experience with IFQ or Other Rationalization Programs Summary Review of Relevant Literature –

lessons learned

Region-Specific Experience – applying the lessons learned to the regional and fishery context

Social/Community Impact Assessment

Community Profiles Community #1

Community Demographics Local Economy and Links to the Trawl Fishery Community Revenues Summary of Recent Community Rationalization

Experience Differential Impacts of Trawl Fishery Management

Alternatives

Community #2 (and so on)

SIA Analytic Challenge: Data Confidentiality

Need to aggregate fisheries data 4 or more entities Counts versus common ownership

Communities by permit data confidentiality status

Communities by permit data confidentiality status

Communities by permit data confidentiality status

Confidentiality Example: Limited number of communities without harvester data restrictions Oregon

Astoria

Charleston

Clackamas

Coos Bay

Garibaldi

Newport

Warrenton

Communities without harvester data restrictions (continued) California

Eureka

Fort Bragg

Half Moon Bay

San Francisco

Washington Seattle

Data Confidentiality Issues: Processors

Defining processors

Confidentiality by location

Communities confidentiality methodological approaches

Aggregation of communities based on proximity and socioeconomic ties (see map)

Use of averaged data for communities with fewer than requisite number of entities

Anticipated Community Impact Drivers

Vessel consolidation Employment: loss of skipper and crew positions

Income: change in compensation structure

Support service businesses

Public revenues

Processor consolidation Employment/income processing employees

Support service businesses

Public revenues

Anticipated Community Impact Drivers (cont.)

Change in spatial distribution of effort and landing patterns What is logical to look for at this point?

Toward larger communities? Others?

Change in temporal distribution of effort What is logical to anticipate at this point?

How would this impact communities and support businesses?

Anticipated Community Impact Drivers (cont.)

Change number of vessels What is logical to look for at this point?

Toward larger vessels? Other attributes?

Change in number of processors What is logical to anticipate at this point?

Toward larger processors? Change in balance of larger and niche processors?

Community Options to be Analyzed

Community Stability Holdback Option

Community Involvement Option

Existing Community Impact Control Mechanism Options

Community Stability Holdback Option

General Portion of annual QP held back and allocated

for proposals submitted by IFQ holders [earlier: joint fishermen/processor venture proposals]

Proposals evaluated with priority on community benefits

Shares held back continue to be trawl shares

Community Stability Holdback Option (continued)

Holdback Up to 25 percent of total annual QP

for [non-whiting] shoreside component of trawl fishery (but period may be greater than one year)

Community Stability Holdback Option (continued)

Committee Appointed by Council, recommendations approved

by Council before being forwarded to NMFS

Role to make recommendations with the purpose of achieving community development, enhancement, or stabilization goals

Composed of representatives of West Coast regions, port districts, processors, and fishermen

Staffing by NMFS + Council (option A) or Council (option B)

Community Stability Holdback Option (continued)

Eligibility for Participation IFQ holders [previously joint

fishermen/ processor venture proposals]; may work together in collaboratives.

IFQ holders may only participate in one proposal

Community Stability Holdback Option (continued)

Allocation Criteria To be developed, but quantitative in nature for

consistent application to proposals Potential criteria may or may not include:

Past performance (performance on past commitments) Utilization (indicator of wastage and pollution

externalities) Local added value (value of exports divided by landings) Local labor employment (percentage of local employees)

Community Stability Holdback Option (continued)

Potential Allocation Criteria (Continued) Local labor earnings (wages to product value ratio) Public debt related to fisheries investment (fishery

infrastructure debt relying on fisheries activity repayment)

Public investment dedicated to fisheries (total public investments supporting fishing industry)

Port dependence (proportion of total port revenue derived from fisheries activity)

Other (to be identified through public comment)

Community Involvement Option

Committee Convened by Council; composed of

representatives of West Coast regions, port districts, processors, and fishermen

Make recommendations pertaining to IFQ program and its impacts to port districts, regions, processors, and fishermen

Existing Community Impact Control Mechanism Options

Allowing communities to hold quota

Setting limits on quota accumulation

Allocations of whiting and non-whiting groundfish species for shoreside and at-sea delivery

Temporarily prohibiting QS transfer after initial allocation (to be analyzed, but NOT a part of current alternatives)

Distribute revoked shares or reclaimed quota to new entrants

Environmental Justice Analysis

High and adverse impacts

Disproportionately accruing to minority populations or low-income populations

Populations vs. community (e.g. population pockets)