74 



overfishing is an unintended consequence (again, in part) of federal programs that 

 contributed to the overcapitalization of the commercial fishing fleets. It is also al- 

 most universally accepted that Amendment 5 restrictions alone will not result in a 

 restoration of the groundfish fisheries. The issue of overcapitalization must be ad- 

 dressed squarely. Given this, it seems clear that the adjustment process must in- 

 clude measures to eliminate excess capacity (i.e. vessel buy back) at outset, not 

 somewhere down the line. Even before the Secretarv's announcement of the relief 

 package, industry members were largely agreed on the need for a buy back. An in- 

 Qustry group is working on the design of a bud back. An interim report is available 

 from the East Coast Fisheries Federation now. Without a buy back, the problem will 

 almost certainly be pushed south, exactly the fear of Rhode Island, as noted above. 

 However, a buy back program would finance exit strategies for some — hardly all — 

 fishermen. More attention is needed to develop exit strategies for the larger (as yet 

 indeterminable) number of hands idled by the restrictions and a buy back program. 

 I am frustrated by glib talk about retraining fishermen and other industry workers, 

 family members, etc., who will be dislocated by Amendment 5. We have the means 

 to offer retraining under our dislocated worker programs. But the question remains. 

 Retraining for what? This region is still wrestling with workforce retraining issues 

 associated with the end of the Cold War. 



Family Assistance Centers 



At least in Rhode Island, and I speak here for my counterpart in Connecticut, 

 there is confusion and frustration over the mobile Fishing Family Assistance Center 

 (FFAC) approach which the NMFS has inaugurated and seems determined to con- 

 tinue in its present form despite repeated requests for reconsideration. The use of 

 the term Family in conjunction with Assistance Center implies a range of services 

 which NMFS does not and never intends to offer. In those areas where NMFS has 

 established permanent centers they are colocated with state and local job training 

 and service providers. This is not possible with the mobile center approach unless 

 the NMFS FFAC Fisheries Specialist is colocated with local providers on those days 

 when he/she is in state. We prefer a one-stop-shopping arrangement which is not 

 possible if the NMFS FFAC Fisheries Specialist goes directly to a port. If the only 

 individual a fisherman sees is the NMFS representative who has information and 

 applications for federal assistance programs only, they may well miss connecting 

 with the person they need to see regarding job training or family services. Con- 

 versely, family members seeking information and assistance are going to be dis- 

 appointed, confused and discouraged if the seek family services at a mobile FFAC 

 only to find they have made a trip to the wrong ofTice. 



We strongly believe that in the absence of a permanent facUity that the current 

 approach by which the FFAC coordinator visits local ports in four states attempting 

 to reach fishermen directly serves to dissipate the resource. We envision as an alter- 

 native having the NMFS FFAC Fisheries Specialist work more directly with state 

 and/or local employment &. training agencies and human services providers. Under 

 such an arrangement one state or local agency would be designate the primary point 

 of contact for assistance to fishermen and their families. The NMFS Fisheries Spe- 

 cialist would provide information and training to local personnel who would dissemi- 

 nate information and receive applications for NMFS assistance when the coordina- 

 tor is in another community. Tnus the NMFS Fisheries Specialist would effectively 

 become the federal liaison to the state or region served by the FFAC rather than 

 just being an FFAC coordinator. 



OTHER CHALLENGES FACING THE INDUSTRY 



Finally, we are concerned that other federal initiatives underway may combine 

 with the restrictions on groundfishing to overwhelm an industry already struggling 

 to adapt to dynamic changes. Clean Water Act requirements on processors the and 

 new Food and Drug Administration regulations due within the year will affect vir- 

 tually every segment of the industry from harvesters through retailers. While the 

 commercial fishing industry is hardly unique in having to respond to regulations 

 from multiple sources its historic independence and lack of a well established 

 central communications network makes it singularly susceptible to being over- 

 whelmed by simultaneous demands for compliance. This situation underscores the 

 need for close and continuing coordination between federal agencies and the federal 

 government and state and local governments in all matters pertaining to the com- 

 mercial fishing industry in the coming months. 



SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 



I have tried to make three major points in this presentation: 



