Magnuson-Stevens created 8 separate regional councils to manage fisheries in federal waters. According ALFA’s Linda Behnken, not all regions have placed as much emphasis on resource protection as the North Pacific. (NOAA Fisheries image)

A number of regional fishing associations are joining forces to strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Sitka-based Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association announced last week (9-9-14) that it’s reached an agreement with the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and several east-coast industry groups to form the Fishing Community Coalition.

The new organization wants to ensure that Congress makes protecting fish stocks a priority as it prepares to reauthorize the nation’s most important law governing the harvest of seafood in federal waters.

Downloadable audio.

Draft language containing proposed changes to Magnuson-Stevens has been working its way through the US House of Representatives, but the political lines became clearer when Florida’s Republican Sen. Marco Rubio introduced his version of the bill on September 16.

Read the full text of Sen. Rubio’s Florida Fisheries Improvement Act.

The top priority for Rubio is giving the regional management councils more flexibility in setting timelines for rebuilding depleted fish stocks.

This is exactly what Linda Behnken, the director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, was hoping not to hear.

“There’s quite a pushback right now against the rebuilding timelines and the catch limits. You start rebuilding stocks, it means you have to catch less fish, generally, and that’s a painful process for fishermen.”

Behnken says she wasn’t expecting a Senate bill so soon, but Rubio’s paralells some language she’s seen in the House. The Fishing Community Coalition is worried about a reauthorization that merely “reaffirms the status quo” or worse “moves backward.” The Mangnuson-Stevens Act was first passed in 1976, and wasn’t considered very effective for its first two decades. But substantial amendments in 1996 and 2006 reinforced the law’s commitment to sustainability.

Behnken would like to stay the course.

“To protect the gains that we’ve made in the last two reauthorizations, for the resource. And also to look for ways to support policy that keeps a healthy resource and provides access for people who live in traditional fishing communities, to those resources.”

Behnken served three terms on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, one of eight regional councils established under Magnuson-Stevens. While there were always politics and tension over the allocation of fish, one thing remained unchanged.

“In this region, in the North Pacific, the council never sets any catch limits for stocks above what the scientists recommend to be optimal levels — the maximum levels that can be taken without undermining the health of the stock. That’s not the case in other parts of the country.”

“We definitely have some out here, with our Georges Bank and our Gulf of Maine cod stocks, that are a mess,” says Tom Dempsey,the Policy Director of the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance.

“And they’re collapsing right in front of us. We need improve how we manage those stocks, to give ourselves a chance at rebuilding to a point where we can have a sustainable fishery.”

Dempsey says fisheries for scallop and lobster are doing well in his region. But, groundfish, the flagship of the historic New England fisheries, are on the verge of becoming commercially-extinct. As recently as 30 years ago there were 60 boats fishing for cod throughout the summer out of Chatham, Massachusetts, where Dempsey lives. Today there are two part-time boats.

Dempsey also holds a seat on the New England Fisheries Management Council. He says there’s a tendency to distrust science in his area, and unlike Alaska, no annual stock assessment. Management decisions are sometimes being made on biological information that is several years old.

“That is a huge frustration of ours. It’s one of the central things we want to get done in this reauthorization process. And unfortunately there’s been opposition out here to the levels of catch accountability that you need to manage stocks. I say it all the time: When you’re managing fish, there are only two questions. How many fish are in the water, and how many fish are you taking out?”

Sen. Rubio’s bill includes provisions to increase funding for stock assessments and data collection, but the track record of success of Magnuson-Stevens outside of Alaska is not stellar.

Matthew Felling, spokesperson for Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, says his boss holds some sway over her Florida colleague.

“She is someone that he relies on for guidance and for knowledge. Sen. Begich, of course, has a role because he works closely with Sen. Rubio on the Oceans Subcommittee. But as all three of them are members of the Oceans Caucus, Sen. Murkowski has been able to inform Rubio’s understanding of our waters, our fishing industry, and of our success story that we have in Alaska.”

Felling says that with the Senate likely to go into recess until mid-November, there’s no way any reauthorization will happen in this Congress. He thinks the extra time will produce a more thoughtful bill.

“Just last month at an event in the Kenai, Sen. Murkowski said that the most important priority to MSA authorization was to not just rush it and get it over with, but to do it right, dot the i’s, cross the t’s, and make sure that all possible stakeholders have their voices heard.”

Those stakeholders — according to Sen. Rubio’s office — include some of the producers, processors, and retailers trying to make the most of limited stocks. And although giving the councils “flexibility” to depart from strict conservation guidelines may become the most politically-charged idea in the reauthorization process, ALFA’s Linda Behnken says it doesn’t have to be. She says flexibility — as in the use of new data-collection tools, like cameras rather than on board observers — can actually be a good thing.

“That kind of flexibility doesn’t compromise the resource, but it’s real important to small boats and fishing communities.”

In addition to the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association and the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, the Fishing Community Coalition includes the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, and the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder’s Alliance.

Pink salmon gather at the mouth of Starrigavan Creek in Sitka. in some markets, the roe of this species can be more valuable than the flesh. (KCAW photo/Rich McClear)

Russia’s ongoing embargo of American agricultural and seafood products has produced some sharp rhetoric from political leaders — including Alaska’s senators. But the true impact of embargo on the Alaska seafood industry remains unclear. Because of robust markets elsewhere for some of the products favored by Russians — like salmon caviar — the showdown may be more about politics than economics.

Downloadable audio.

International diplomacy is often likened to a chess game. A movement on one part of the chess board affects play on the whole board. Russia annexed the Crimea on the Black Sea in Southern Europe this spring, the US imposed selected economic sanctions on Russia and Russia turned around and embargoed American food products, including Alaska seafood.

The Cold war has been over for 25 years, but you wouldn’t guess that from recent remarks by Alaska’s two senators. Here is Mark Begich speaking to the Sitka Chamber of Commerce.

“Russia does not take our fish product anymore. Now let me make it very clear, if they don’t reverse this and Russia does not open their markets back up I will do everything I can to close their markets here in the US.”

Mathew Felling, communications director for Senator Lisa Murkowski also takes a hard line.

“It there’s anything we’ve learned about Putin in the last year it’s that he sees the value of forceful meaningful action and if Putin wants to use fish or food as a weapon we need to demonstrate that we are prepared to respond in-kind.”

A consortium of seafood producers has asked the Alaska Congressional Delegation propose a ban on the import of Russian seafood to America in retaliation for Russia’s embargo on Alaska seafood. Terry Shaff signed the request on behalf of 9 processors. Schaff is president of UniSea Seafoods, a processor in Unalaska shipping Surimi to Russia. UniSea had a shipment of Surimi enroute to Russia when the embargo went into effect. They had to divert six containers to a warehouse in Germany.

“There’s definitely a cost for us taking it to Germany, having to find new customers. And then we’ll have to go back through and re-label every single carton in those containers because they were destined for the Russian market and had Russian markings on them.”

Surimi is made from pollock and is found in fish sticks and imitation crab. But Shaff says the greatest harm to the Alaska seafood industry could be to salmon producers. Alexa Takovic, with the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute agrees.

“Because of the roe and because of the sheer volume of salmon that had previously been exported to Russia.”

Caviar is made from the roe of chum and pink salmon and Russia is Alaska’s second largest market for salmon roe. I called several Southeast Alaska salmon processors. None would talk to me on the record. However one processor, off the record, said he didn’t really see a problem because the pink and chum catches were down this year and there may not be enough Alaska product to meet the worldwide demand. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimates that this year’s combined pink and chum catch was more than one hundred million fish below the 2013 take.

ASMIs Tankovic partly agrees but still sees a problem.

“Better to have it happen this year when we have lower harvests than last year when we had record harvests. That said I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that there would be no or minimal impact since Russia is still our second largest salmon roe market. And the second thing you have to consider too is that Russia imported quite a bit of salmon from Norway in particular and European exports to Russia are also sanctioned. That product going into other markets will have an impact on Alaska Salmon.”

In other words, Norwegian salmon that would have gone to Russia will now be competing with Alaska salmon in markets in the rest of the world. Steve Reifenstuhl, general manager of the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association gave another reason for concern.

Reifenstuhl — Last year fisheries across the state were very very good and we broke the all-time record by a large margin and because of that there is somewhat of a glut on the market. All that fish that was harvested and processed last year hasn’t been moved.

So this year’s catch is competing with last year’s catch in the international market, so the loss of the Russian market could be a problem. Nevertheless, Tankovic said that ASMI started developing alternative markets as soon as they saw the possibility of conflict between the US and Russia.

Tankovic — We, as an international marketing program, have anticipated that we may want to look to other markets for roe. China, Germany, and France are the next biggest roe markets after Japan and after Russia. We have also considered other Eastern European Markets.

Reifenstuhl — Anyplace there is an emerging middle class.

NSRAA’s Reifenstuhl sees the market for Alaska caviar expanding to new markets beyond Eastern Europe.

Reifenstuhl — South America, Africa, Asia, China, they look to what the rich people are eating and sure enough, they want Salmon and that’s been great for Alaska.
Tankovic — In the short term it creates a little bit of confusion. That said, I think we’re really a resilient industry. There will be a minor impact but I think we will get past it.

So, when exactly the Russian embargo ends remains a question for senators and diplomats. The question for Alaska seafood producers is slightly different: When Russian markets re-open, will Alaska need them?