151 



tx^flts and fHctory trawlon. W« also expressed cooccnu about the eflbct on price 

 arid maHcet freedom that ff shcnnen would find under the oouncirs ptnn that 

 guaranteed shoresidc processors as much of the harveiit as they are able to use. 

 Tbore are indications in the final rule that ComitM»x:e had some of these sanM 

 conceni8. It is po»iible that if they had substituted a plan of their own, it migjtt 

 have included the provisions we asked for. 



It j^>peara to us that the Commerce Department was trying to find a way to addross 

 th^ Councifs stated concern about preomptioa of harvest (^poitunitios fbr 

 shprehased based boats while ensuring fhir treatment for the other harvestera. The 

 Council's allocation vras e^qiresscd in tonnages, rather than in percentages as we 

 hfljd requested, thus requiring the at*sea fleet to bear all the burden of conservation 

 at low stock Icvek In addition, the Coimcifs plan would have encoyiaged 

 in^eased investment In shoreside proceasing, at the expense of existing American 

 processors. At the same tinie» it would not have provided market oppoftimitics fbr 

 mt>re catcher boats, but simply have given more fish to the few boats that already 

 ha'vQ shoreside maiicets, contrary to tiie Council's stated concern for the limited 

 entry fleet 



Because the council based its allocation scheme on processing, ratho- than 

 boosting; the traditional fishermen have been placed at fte mercy of the 

 prjx'«s.<w>rs regarding the price paid fbr the fish, an allocation that is, in practical 

 te^ns, made to processors guaratiteca them a source offish. As a result, they have 

 th^ freedom to reduce the price tlioy o0cr to fishennen, establish fishing seasons to 

 their prefa-once, and vertically integrate. This happened in AJa.ska last year when 

 3?% of the pollock allocation was guaranteed to shorcside processors. Th« plants 

 wi^ a<tsur^ of an adeqiiate sitpply of pollock. The price was dropped from $. 1 5 

 to $.07. h is interesting to note that the offihore cat<^ vessels had a relatively 

 snjallor reduction in price from 1992 to 1993 than did the catcher vessels that 

 dciivoXK] sboreaide. Many of the plants have purchased their own cat(^ boats 

 and can exert further ocntrol tfirougb their vertically integrated fiects. 



Congress has already addressed this situation in the Magnuson Aot and in the 

 legislation known as the Processor Preference AmondmenL . 



National Standard HA of the Magnuson Act (see Table II) is specific H assumes 

 thjit allocations will be made to fghcpncn. not processors, amt says that the 

 aUoCAtion should be fiiir and equitable to all such fishermen and that no particular 

 individual, corporation or ^tity can acquire an excessive share. The Pacific 

 Council allocated based on^e location of the processor (i^wrebascd, atpsea). What 

 tii|^ should have done was base the allocation on the type ofbarvester (traditional 



