56 



source for fishermen and some processors. Massachusetts enacted an emergency clo- 

 sure of the urchin fishery this year. 



3) Efforts to protect the harbor porpoise from coastal gill net fisheries may result 

 in curtailment of or reductions in those fisheries. 



4) Battles among sportfishermen, commercial fishermen and environment groups 

 over international olue fin tuna allocations at ICAT has exacerbated tensions be- 

 tween those parties which spill over to the groundfish issue. 



The cumulative effects of these issues must be factored in to any revitalization 

 plans. The groundfishery cannot be viewed in isolation. Transition and economic di- 

 versification strategies for the ground fishery must take into account trends in the 

 other fisheries and their prospective impact on the affected communities if they are 

 to succeed. 



Fishermen in the northeastern industry who depend upon ground fish from the 

 Georges Bank will be the hardest hit by the decline of the industry. The harvesting 

 sector has downsized and it will continue to downsize. Passage of Amendment 5 and 

 other regulatory actions such as Amendment 4 to the scallop plan and emergency 

 closures of the urchin industry may in the short term accelerate dislocation in cer- 

 tain areas. However, significant dislocation was already underway due to precioi- 

 tous decUnes in the fish stocks, in the short term, the communities which will be 

 hardest hit will be Gloucester, New Bedford, and the Maine ports. 



Fishermen in the northeast are forced to compete with low cost imported fish, 

 which, in most cases, are harvested with little regard to conservation of fish stocks 

 and few regulatory constraints on fishing practices. Efforts should be initiated to ex- 

 amine the feasibility of imposed import requirements on foreign fish imports which 

 "level the playing field" and requires foreign fishermen to adhere to conservation 

 measures which are consistent with restrictions imposed on U.S. fishermen fishing 

 in U.S. waters. 



Northeastern fresh fish processors have not been able to compete on a volume 

 basis with low cost foreign processors in the world markets because of declining sup- 

 ply, lack of dependability of supply, quality problems, volume problems, and the cost 

 structure (Kearney 1993, Snow 1990). importers will probably continue to thrive as 

 U.S. consumer demand for fish remains strong. The future of the Northeastern fresh 

 fish processing industry appears to lie in the development of small, flexible niche 

 fresh fish processors which can be supported through small business incubators and 

 micro-enterprise lending programs (Kearney 1993, Snow 1990). 



Overall, tne northeastern processing and distribution industry will not be severely 

 affected by cutbacks caused by Amendment 5 and other regulatory actions reducing 

 availability of fresh fish. However, selected processors who specialize in fresh fish 

 and have failed to diversify their sources of supply may go out of business. Fresh 

 fish processors have been declining for two decades while many importers have 

 flourished. 



Management 



The Northeast groundfishery did not "collapse". Fish stocks have been in a steady 

 downward spiral since 1980. Overfishing has been identified as the princioal cause 

 of the decline. It is likely that other factors, such as pollution, habitat loss, and 

 changes in water temperature have contributed as well, but their effect is not 

 known at this time. Trends in the fishery have been apparent to managers, commer- 

 cial fishermen, and fisheries scientists for years. The decline is the predictable cul- 

 mination of years of mismanagement and failure to address the fundamental prob- 

 lems facing the resource and the fishing industry. 



Although it may seem sell-evident, the over-riding principle guiding any recovery 

 effort for the northeastern fisheries should be to avoid taking any action which will 

 exacerbate or expand the fisheries crisis within the region or to other regions. In 

 fact, however, federal relief programs, as presently crafted, may at best merely pro- 

 vide short term relief to fishermen who have targeted groundfish by shifting pres- 

 sure from the devastated groundfishery to other fisheries which are already under 

 stress. 



The Department of Commerce has announced a relief package of $30 million in 

 federal disaster assistance for the northeastern fisheries crisis. This action brings 

 the total federal relief package to $32.5 million. Those monies are intended to be 

 spent for efforts which will ease the short term dislocation caused by the enactment 

 of regulations under Amendment 5 of the Groundfish plan and Amendment 4 of the 

 scallop plan. The funds can be spent on refinancing lor vessels and mortgages, re- 

 tooling vessels to shift to under-utilized species, aquaculture development, research 

 on gear and technology to reduce waste. If these programs are not coupled with ac- 

 tive programs to reduce the fishing power of the northeastern fleet they will only 

 provide short term relief to a small group of fishermen in Gloucester and New Bed- 



