Upload
fay-hines
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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