Review of the Groundfish Trawl Individual Vessel Quota

Document Sample
Review of the Groundfish Trawl Individual Vessel Quota Powered By Docstoc
					              Review of the
Groundfish Trawl Individual Vessel Quota /
 Groundfish Development Authority Plan

            Discussion Paper

            Prepared by:

            Groundfish Trawl Special Industry
            29 September 1999

Contents _______________________________________________________________ i
Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1
  Purpose of Review____________________________________________________ 1
  Review Methodology__________________________________________________           2
    1. Discussion Paper________________________________________________          2
    2. Consultations___________________________________________________          2
    3. Final Report and Recommendations_________________________________         2
The IVQ / GDA Plan ____________________________________________________ 4
  Conservation ________________________________________________________ 4
    1. Conservation – Specific Objectives _________________________________ 4
    2. Conservation -- Provisions ________________________________________ 4
  Increase Benefits Derived from the Groundfish Trawl Fishery _______________ 5
    1. Increase Benefits – Specific Objectives ______________________________ 5
    2. Increase Benefits - Provisions______________________________________ 5
  Distribution of Benefits Arising from IVQ / GDA Plan _____________________ 5
    1. Distribution of Benefits – Specific Objectives _________________________ 5
    2. Distribution of Benefits - Provisions ________________________________ 6
Evaluation of the IVQ / GDA Plan _________________________________________ 7
  Evaluation of “Conservation” Objectives_________________________________       7
    1. General Evaluation ______________________________________________         7
    2. Summary of GSIC Discussions re: Conservation_______________________       8
    3. Conservation Issues______________________________________________         9
  Evaluation of “Increase Benefits” Objectives ____________________________     10
    1. General Overview ______________________________________________          10
    2. Summary of GSIC Discussions re: Increase Benefits __________________     10
    3. “Increase Benefits” Issues________________________________________       13
  Evaluation of “Distribution of Benefits” Objectives _______________________   13
    1. General Overview ______________________________________________          13
    2. Summary of GSIC Discussions re: Distribution of Benefits _____________   14
    3. “Distribution of Benefits” Issues __________________________________     20
Summary_____________________________________________________________ 21
Groundfish Trawl Special Industry Subcommittee (GSIC) Contacts _____________ 22
Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee Contacts_____________________________ 23
                GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                               Discussion Paper


Purpose of Review
The Individual Vessel Quota / Groundfish Development Authority (IVQ / GDA) plan,
introduced in April 1997, brought wholesale change to the groundfish trawl industry.
The terms of the IVQ / GDA plan were arrived at after a lengthy process including public
consultations, meetings with the Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee (GTAC), and
the formation of the Groundfish Trawl Special Industry Committee (GSIC) to develop the
details of the plan. The plan, as implemented, represented a formal agreement between
GSIC signatories1 – an agreement arrived at after negotiation and compromise by the
fishermen, processor, union, community, and government representatives comprising the
Seeking to achieve conservation, economic, and social objectives, the plan contained
unique and innovative provisions. While attempting to restore the fishery to economic
viability and a sound conservation footing, the plan also sought to allow a “controlled”
rationalization of the fleet, while avoiding the pitfalls associated with other IVQ plans.
Of particular concern at the time of plan implementation was the potential negative
impact of allowing quota to be freely transferred between vessels: widespread quota
“leasing” and undue quota concentration.
In order to allow industry participants time to adjust their initial quota holdings to their
desired “long term” package – whether this meant buying, selling, trading, specializing,
regionalizing, etc. – one-way quota transfers were to be permitted for a two-year
transitional period. Following the transitional period, one-way IVQ transfers would be
prohibited for a minimum of one year. During this “moratorium” period, a review would
be conducted to compare the existing fleet structure to that envisaged at the time of plan
implementation, and assess the need for further rationalization. Subsequently, the
transition period was extended by one year (to May 1, 2000), with the review to be
conducted before the “moratorium” took affect.
After 2 ½ years under the IVQ / GDA system, the groundfish industry has had an
opportunity to adapt and adjust its operating practices to the plan. While sufficient
experience with the plan has been gained to allow a reasonable evaluation to be
conducted, the plan is still new enough that its every provision has not yet become
entrenched in industry’s daily routine. The prospect of a moratorium on quota transfers
looms large in the industry. The fall of 1999 therefore provides a timely opportunity for
review of the IVQ / GDA plan.

 The agreement is Attachment 5 of the document: “A Proposed IVQ / GDA Program for the Groundfish
Trawl Fishery”

                                              -1-                            September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

Review Methodology
The review of the IVQ / GDA program has three parts: the development of this
discussion paper, public consultations, and preparation of the final report and

1.       Discussion Paper
The first phase of the IVQ / GDA plan review (this document) will:
     q   Identify the key objectives (and sub-objectives) of the IVQ / GDA plan;
     q   Identify the elements of the plan which contribute to achievement of each
     q   Provide subjective “argument” (pros and cons), drawing on the knowledge and
         experience of GSIC members, which will assist in evaluation of the effectiveness
         of the plan in meeting key objectives; and
     q   Summarize issues raised by GSIC in preparing this discussion paper.
Note that many elements of the IVQ / GDA plan are subjective in nature – that is,
achievement of certain objectives is not easily measured or verified – so that “pro & con”
discussion is important in assessing the plan’s effectiveness.
This discussion paper will shed light on GSIC’s stance on key issues, and is intended to
focus and guide debate regarding the effectiveness of the IVQ / GDA plan.

2.       Consultations
This discussion paper will be issued to “T” license holders, people with an interest in the
groundfish trawl fishery, and made available to the public at large. Three public
meetings are scheduled – in Prince Rupert, Nanaimo, and Vancouver – where interested
individuals will be invited to provide their constructive input to GSIC’s members.
Comments or submissions may also be forwarded to any GTAC or GSIC member (see
the contact list at the end of the report). All input will be noted for GSIC’s consideration
and summarized in GSIC’s final report.

3.       Final Report and Recommendations
This discussion paper, coupled with input from the industry-at-large to be gained at
public consultation forums, will form the basis of a report to the Fisheries Ministers of
both the federal and provincial governments. The final report to the Ministers will
include an evaluation of the plan, a summary of consultations, and GSIC’s
recommendations for IVQ / GDA plan refinement and improvement. Implementation of
recommendations will be at the sole discretion of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
GSIC’s signatory members have formally agreed to the terms of reference guiding this
review process. The agreement specifies that, while a moratorium on the reallocation of
IVQ is scheduled to commence on May 1, 2000:

                                            -2-                          September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

   q    GSIC signatories, by consensus, may make recommendations to change the
        terms of the moratorium (or other elements of the program);
   q    Recommendations to change an element of the program will only be forwarded
        to the Minister where consensus of GSIC signatories can be reached; and
   q    Where there is no consensus of GSIC signatories to change an aspect of the
        existing IVQ / GDA program, the existing program will remain in effect (subject
        to Ministerial discretion).
Thus, any recommendation to change the program must be supported by all GSIC
signatories. Given the diversity of GSIC membership, this ensures that all perspectives
will be thoroughly considered before changes are recommended.
GSIC membership is shown in Table 1.

  Table 1 – Groundfish Special Industry Committee – IVQ / GDA Program
                              Review Team

        Name               Group Represented                   Role in Review

 Chatwin, Murray                 Processor                        Signatory
                           Coastal Communities
 Davison, Rose                                                    Signatory
 Joyce, Marilyn                     DFO                           Signatory

 McMillan, Dan                   Processor                        Signatory

 Morreau, Bob            Fisherman (Vessel Owner)                 Signatory

 Radosevic, John                  UFAWU                           Signatory

 Smith, Dave             B.C. Ministry of Fisheries               Signatory

 Williams, Allan         Fisherman (Vessel Owner)                 Signatory

 Nelson, Stuart                  Contractor                      Facilitation
 Ackerman, Barry                    DFO                           Advisory
 Humphreys, Bob                    GDA                            Advisory

 Logan, Bruce                     UFAWU                           Advisory

                                          -3-                         September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

                                 The IVQ / GDA Plan

Given the problems prevailing in the groundfish trawl fishery in the years preceding the
plan, a process was established to develop a management plan to address major concerns
from key party’s perspectives. The process resulted in GSIC signatories agreeing on the
objectives and developing the terms of the IVQ / GDA plan in 1996/97 -- a plan unique
to the B.C. groundfish trawl fishery.
The plan sought to restore a sound conservation framework to the groundfish trawl
fishery and allow the economics of the fishery to improve, with mechanisms and
safeguards to ensure that benefits arising from the plan would be broadly shared.
The objectives and elements of the IVQ / GDA plan are described briefly below.


1.       Conservation – Specific Objectives
     q   Ensure conservation – stay within Total Allowable Catch (TACs) and bycatch
     q   Encourage sustainable fishing practices

2.       Conservation -- Provisions
The management plan introduced in April 1997, and the plans that have followed it,
contain a host of rules, obligations, restrictions, and incentives to comply, which strongly
encourage adherence to conservation objectives. Some provisions are specific to the IVQ
portion of the plan; others would be in place regardless. A key aspect of the plan is
individual accountability: each vessel owner / operator is responsible for ensuring that he
meets all requirements under the plan, and failure to comply brings individual penalties.
Individual accountability has tremendous appeal, as the majority of vessel owners /
operators who abide by rules are not penalized for the actions of non-compliers.
However, individual accountability implies a high degree of monitoring and enforcement,
with the associated cost and inconvenience of such measures. The following are the
specific mechanisms in place to ensure conservation objectives are met.
     q   Halibut bycatch restrictions
     q   Fish released at sea rules
     q   Fishing restrictions for quota overage
     q   Port monitoring
     q   At-sea monitoring
     q   Gear restrictions
     q   Area closures

                                           -4-                          September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

     q   Enforcement programs

Increase Benefits Derived from the Groundfish Trawl Fishery

1.       Increase Benefits – Specific Objectives
     q   Improve economic viability
     q   Increase the value of groundfish production (such as value added processing)
     q   Allow fleet regionalization and specialization
     q   Provide market stabilization (such as a year round fishery)
     q   Encourage industry training opportunities
     q   Encourage safe vessel operation

2.       Increase Benefits - Provisions
Key to creating benefits under plan: get the available TAC’s out of the water and allow
maximal benefits to be extracted from the catch. Plan provisions do not explicitly
encourage industry to generate economic and non-economic benefits. In fact,
conservation measures (above) and distribution measures (below) create significant
obstacles to the creation of additional economic benefits under the plan. What increasing
benefits measures do is provide industry with a measure of flexibility, so that individuals
can assemble IVQs and harvest them in a manner and on a schedule which allows
optimal benefit to be gained from a given quantity of fish.
The following provisions allow flexibility to comply with regulations and generate
     q   IVQ transferability
     q   Timing (can schedule fishing anytime during year, not by monthly or quarterly
     q   Fishing options – A & B
     q   Quota overage / underage carry-over
     q   Groundfish equivalents
     q   Conversion factors

Distribution of Benefits Arising from IVQ / GDA Plan

1.       Distribution of Benefits – Specific Objectives
     q   Maintain existing processing capability
     q   Stabilize groundfish industry employment

                                           -5-                          September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

     q   Encourage economic development in coastal communities
     q   Allow fair treatment of crews (earnings and working conditions)
     q   Allow a controlled rationalization to an economically viable fleet level (in the
         60-80 active vessel range)
     q   Avoid pitfalls associated with leasing and quota concentration
This objective – seeking “fair” distribution of benefits arising from the IVQ plan –
effectively places constraints on vessel owners and processors, ensuring that they are
broadly accountable for the effects that their fish harvesting / processing / marketing
activities have on other parties.
A tacit (4th) objective of the Plan was that its objectives be achieved in an orderly
manner… through evolution rather than revolution… so that participants would have
time and flexibility to adjust to necessary changes.

2.       Distribution of Benefits - Provisions
The IVQ / GDA plan specifically seeks to influence the way in which economic and
other benefits arising from implementation of IVQs are divided, and to control the pace
of change resulting from implementation of a radically new plan.
The following three major elements relate to the distribution of benefits under the plan:
     q   Initial IVQ allocations, where 80% of the TACs are allocated directly to vessels
         according to a formula.
     q   The Groundfish Development Authority (GDA) provides advice to the Minister
         of Fisheries & Oceans on how the remaining 20% of the TACs, through
         Groundfish Development Quota (GDQ) and Code of Conduct Quota (CCQ), are
         allocated to vessels each year.
     q   A system of safeguards to prevent undue concentration of benefits using species
         and total holdings caps and transferability restrictions.
The initial IVQ allocation formula was implemented following an arbitration process,
utilizing a combination of landing history (70%) and vessel length (30%). While
individual vessel owners were greatly impacted by their initial IVQ allocation, and few
were content with their allocation, the fairness or correctness of initial IVQ allocations is
outside the scope of this review. This review will, however, assess the ability of vessel
owners to adjust their initial IVQ allocations to a level and species mix which suits
individual goals and objectives.

                                            -6-                           September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

                       Evaluation of the IVQ / GDA Plan

As indicated above, the IVQ plan sought to:
     1. Ensure conservation;
     2. Increase benefits derived from the fishery; and
     3. Ensure fair distribution of benefits arising from IVQs
All of which was to be accomplished through an orderly transition process. A
preliminary evaluation of each of these objectives is presented in turn.

Evaluation of “Conservation” Objectives

1.       General Evaluation
Analysis of data confirms that, under the IVQ / GDA plan, the conservation objectives
are being met. The system of regulations, restrictions, and monitoring is having the
intended effect that individuals, and therefore the fleet in aggregate, are adhering to
TACs and bycatch targets. Beyond strict compliance with conservation regulations,
GSIC believes that the plan has caused the fleet to alter its fishing practices so that
responsible / sustainable fishing strategies are emerging. The following fishing practices
are becoming commonplace.
     q   Pre-season & in-season planning – Vessel owners, in conjunction with their
         crews and processing companies, engage in constant planning, including
         strategies for maximizing utilization of assembled IVQ (area, timing, etc.), and
         altering quota holdings to adjust to in-season circumstances.
     q   Cooperation amongst captains vs. competition between captains – In the absence
         of a race for fish, individuals are motivated to share information and strategies
         which allow the harvest of target species and the avoidance of bycatch species.
     q   Sample (assessment) tows – Vessels make a practice, when entering a new
         fishing area, of making a short tow to assess the suitability of the species mix in
         the area.
     q   Selective gear / technology – Investments in gear and electronics geared to
         winning the race for fish have been replaced by investment in gear which allows
         selective harvest.
Given the strict conservation provisions of the plan, the skillful execution of a fishing
plan by captains and crews is a critical link in ensuring a profitable fishing or processing
operation. While conservation restrictions in the IVQ / GDA plan collectively comprise a
persuasive “stick”, GSIC believes that the “carrot” of long term benefits to individuals
arising from well-managed groundfish stocks, is also a factor contributing to modified
fishing behaviour.

                                            -7-                           September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

2.       Summary of GSIC Discussions re: Conservation
GSIC is comfortable (and unanimous) in concluding that the conservation measures
contained in the IVQ / GDA plan provide adequate incentive for staying within
individual quotas and bycatch limits, through the use of a system of penalties for non-
compliance (being “kicked-off the bottom”, forfeiting catch, losing quota for next year).
Strictly speaking, the conservation goals of DFO are being met under the IVQ / GDA
plan. As the groundfish trawl industry seeks to progress beyond mere compliance with
regulations, however, some “loftier” goals, or desirable directions for the future, have
been identified in GSIC discussions:
     q   improve stock assessment – knowledge of stocks by species and by area; better
         stock assessment will result in “the right” TACs being set…TACs which ensure
         a sustainable fishery;
     q   encourage selective / responsible fishing practices – less fish releases at-sea;
         higher utilization of catch; etc.; and
     q   encourage stewardship – toward fishermen tending the resource vs. DFO as
         watchdog over fishermen.

Improve Stock Assessment
The amount and quality of data collected and available to DFO groundfish stock
assessment scientists has risen exponentially since the beginning of the at-sea observer
program (ASOP) in 1996 and the DMP in 1994. Although the observer program data
base contains only three years of data, scientists confirm that their “comfort level”
regarding knowledge of status of individual stocks has risen. Good data is a critical
component of stock assessment.
GSIC notes that the stabilization of TACs resulting partially from improved data, has
freed industry from “haggling” about TAC levels, and allowed an increased focus on
stock issues. A long-term focus is replacing an “annual” focus.

Selective / Responsible Fishing Practices
GSIC recognizes a worldwide movement towards selective / responsible fishing
practices. Clearly, selective fishing, or maximizing harvest of target species while
minimizing impact to non-target species, is important for the long-term sustainability of
any fishery.
The IVQ / GDA plan provides a framework which encourages the groundfish trawl fleet
to harvest selectively: TACs are set on an individual vessel basis; excessive catch of a
single TAC causes a vessel to forfeit both its surplus catch, and, ultimately, its right to
bottom-trawl; all at-sea releases of TAC (marketable) species are assigned a mortality
which is counted against the vessel’s IVQ; and each halibut caught is assessed a mortality
rate based on condition, length of tow, etc., and “charged” against the vessel’s halibut
bycatch allowance.

                                             -8-                          September, 1999
                GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                               Discussion Paper

While each vessel must adhere to rigid regulations, the groundfish trawl fleet is still
entitled to engage in at-sea releases of un-marketable TAC species (under-size), and non-
TAC species (i.e., ratfish) without consequence. In these areas, DFO and GSIC
membership would like to see, over time, improvement in utilization of non-TAC catch,
and reduction in at-sea releases of unmarketable TAC species.
There is some (early) evidence that these selectivity strides are already being made.

Toward Stewardship
In a perfect world, stringent regulations and enforcement measures would not be required
to motivate individuals to adhere to quotas, utilize selective fishing practices, and provide
accurate advice and information regarding fishing activities. An IVQ plan, in which
quota-holders have a defined, long-term interest in the health of fish stocks, should
encourage this notion of stewardship.
At this early stage of the IVQ / GDA plan, however, GSIC believes that it is more the
“stick” (rules, regulations, penalties, monitoring) which causes the fleet as a whole to
perform in a conservation-minded manner, than the “carrot” of perceived long term
individual benefit. Given that individuals are now rewarded for working within the plan
framework, however, and are secure in the knowledge that non-compliers will be
penalized (i.e., a “level playing field”), stewardship behaviour is encouraged.

3.       Conservation Issues
While a data review confirms that conservation objectives are being achieved under the
plan, and suggests that additional strides are being made (i.e., improved selectivity and
resource sustainability), GSIC discussion reflects that:
     q   certain provisions of the plan are punitive; relatively small errors can lead to
         being kicked off the bottom, forfeiting proceeds of overage, and deductions from
         next years’ quota;
     q   collectively, conservation provisions make the task of harvesting available IVQs
     q   given existing quota transferring provisions, individuals are able to abide by
         regulations; and
     q   in the absence of quota transfer flexibility, it will be difficult for individuals to
         maintain compliance with regulations while harvesting available quota.
In the event of a moratorium on one-way quota transfers, then, new mechanisms will need
to be found to give vessel operators the needed flexibility to adjust their quota holdings to
ever-changing circumstances.

                                              -9-                           September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

Evaluation of “Increase Benefits” Objectives

1.       General Overview
The benefits envisioned at the time of plan implementation were primarily, but not
exclusively, economic. The plan does not contain a host of economic incentives, but
rather, by ending the race for fish and allowing a more orderly harvesting pattern, it
creates an environment from which incremental benefits should flow.
Under the plan, individuals are motivated to maximize the benefits realizable from a
given quantity of fish, rather than simply trying to catch more fish. By focusing
increasingly on quality and servicing the market with the appropriate volumes and
species-mix, industry has generated some positive changes under the plan:
     q   product mix (e.g., fresh vs. frozen) is dictated by more by market conditions, and
         less by capacity considerations;
     q   wholesale fillet prices for key species have risen since 1997;
     q   fish prices (ex-vessel) have risen since 1977;
     q   crew and vessel earnings have risen, despite an increase in operating costs under
         the plan (although the number of participants is reduced); and
     q   the predictability and stability of the fishery has improved, given the ongoing
         planning process conducted by each vessel owner and its captain and crew; GSIC
         believes this translates into a more stable supply of fish into the marketplace, and
         more safe and stable employment for crewmen and shoreworkers.
The key to realizing the full potential benefit of gains achieved under the plan, is “getting
the fish out of the water.” Industry’s effectiveness in fully utilizing TACs has improved
in each year of the plan, to the extent that current landed values far-exceed those that
were attained in the pre-plan period.
GSIC believes that the key “tool” utilized by industry to improve its harvesting
effectiveness has been the (one-way) quota transfer. The number of transfers has
increased dramatically (year-over-year) in each year of the plan, as has the quantity of
fish transferred in total; this is in spite of the fact that a diminishing number of active
vessels are engaging in transfer activity. One-way transfers are being utilized as a pre-
season tool (planning and organizing the years’ fishing operation) and increasingly, as a
day-to-day tool, to adapt and adjust to in-season situations as may arise.

2.       Summary of GSIC Discussions re: Increase Benefits
It is quite clear that, for those fishermen actively involved in the groundfish trawl fishery,
incremental financial benefits are being realized under the IVQ plan. The increased costs
under the plan – such as quota acquisition charges, GDA fees, - are justified by enhanced
revenues. It is also clear that, for individuals to realize maximal benefit from the
improved business and resource climate that exists under the plan, “getting the fish out of
the water” is imperative. The primary elements of the plan that allow fishermen to get
the fish out of the water are the transferability and carry-over provisions.

                                            - 10 -                        September, 1999
              GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                             Discussion Paper

Quota Transferability
GSIC discussion of the overall IVQ / GDA review was dominated by the transferability
issue. In particular, the anticipated impact of a looming moratorium on one-way transfers
causes grave concern.
At the time of IVQ / GDA plan implementation, one-way transfers were seen as a
temporary tool whereby vessels would have the opportunity to assemble their “ongoing”
(permanent) quota package. For two (later extended to three) years, quota holders could
regionalize, specialize, and generally engage in trades which resulted in a “catchable”
package of fish being assembled, which reflected the desired quantity, area, and species
mix of the owner / operator. The one-way transfer is a relatively simple “transaction”
which facilitates the movement of fish between vessel owners.
The simplicity of the one-way transfer was also a cause for concern – it was feared that
“excessive” fleet rationalization may occur, and that non-fishery participants (investors)
would extract rents from the working fleet. Given the unknown extent of fleet
rationalization when the plan was devised, the moratorium on one-way transfers was seen
as an opportunity to “pause, review and reflect” on how the plan was performing vs.
In the event of a moratorium on one-way quota transfers, the only mechanism for vessels
to acquire needed quota, or divest of un-needed quota, will be to structure two-way trades
where quota with equal groundfish equivalents (GFEs) changes hands. Transfers of this
nature are more difficult and time consuming to execute and, being based on GFEs, are
unlikely to reflect the value of each specie in each area to individual fishermen, based on
their individual circumstances.

Quota Transferring Activity To-date
In examining quota transferring activity under the plan, GSIC found that one-way
transfers are by far the preferred means of moving quota amongst vessels. The one-way
transfer is a flexible tool taking many possible forms.
   q    a purchase – one quota holder buying quota from another on a permanent basis;
   q    a “lease” – the quota may be trading hands temporarily, for a season or two, with
        the lessor agreeing to transfer the quota back to the original holder after the
        specified period;
   q    a trade, with “cash” as the “equalizer” – fish may be trading hands, but money is
        used to “balance” the transaction;
   q    a pure trade – only fish are exchanged between parties, based on their agreed
        assessment of the value of the fish to them (i.e., GFEs not considered);
   q    an arrangement between fishermen, with some consideration to follow – often,
        where a vessel develops a sudden requirement for a given species in an area (i.e.
        accidentally exceeds an IVQ), an “ally” will provide necessary quota, on the
        proviso that an acceptable transfer negotiated at a later date;

                                          - 11 -                       September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

The two-way trade, for equal GFEs (the only fish-movement method under a
moratorium), is a transaction which has been virtually unused to-date; conversely, use of
the one-way transfer is increasing dramatically as industry gains experience with the IVQ
/ GDA plan.
The increase in trading activity is despite the fact that fewer vessels are actively involved
in trades – while virtually all of the 142 T licenses effected trades in 1997, about 75 are
involved in transfers this year. The number of trades per active license as well as the
percentage of quota transferred is steadily rising. Rather than being utilized by quota
holders to assemble “final” quota packages, one-way transfers are being utilized as a pre-
season tool (planning and organizing the years’ fishing operation) and increasingly, as a
day-to-day tool, to adapt and adjust to in-season situations as may arise.

Link Between Trading Activity and Increasing Harvest of TAC
GSIC believes that the escalation in quota transferring activity is a major factor in
industry’s improving ability to “get the fish out of the water” under the IVQ / GDA plan.
The percentage of the TAC harvested improved in 1998 vs. 1997 and GSIC estimates that
it will further improve in 1999. Full utilization of TACs is the primary means of
realizing the benefits of increased fish prices under the plan.

        Table 2 – Percent of TAC Harvested for Key Quota Groundfish
                           1996 (pre-IVQ) 97/98 98/99 99/00
               Rockfish                91%  76%   84%   88%
               PO Perch               112%  91%   95%   95%
               Soles                   76%  66%   68%   70%
               Lingcod                 35%  42%   36%   45%

GSIC believes that, in the event of a moratorium on one-way transfers, the percentage of
the TAC harvested will drop. Reasons for this assessment follow:
   q    Whereas transfers to-date have been geared toward assembling “specialized”
        packages of quota which can be effectively harvested, GSIC feels many of these
        transfers are temporary, which will be reversed with the quota reverting to the
        original holders.
   q    Quota holders will face a dilemma: whether to remain specialized, which implies
        larger quantities of fewer species / area quotas, or hold a “diversified” portfolio,
        comprised of all species / area groupings? From an operating perspective
        (catching the fish), the specialized portfolio is preferred, but from a “prudent
        investor” point of view, diversification is superior. Without doubt, a portion of
        currently active vessels will adopt the “diversification” approach.
   q    Even quota holders who adopt a specialized approach will from time-to-time
        encounter difficulties matching their quota holdings to their catch. In these
        instances, remedies will be more difficult to expedite under a two-way / equal
        GFE system.

                                           - 12 -                        September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

     q   GFEs, as the foundation for two-way transfers, are a rigid system that will
         unlikely reflect individual needs and changing circumstances. For example, the
         value of halibut bycatch quota is greater to an individual who has exceeded his
         IVQ and is facing being “kicked off the bottom” than the value to an individual
         with an apparent surplus of halibut bycatch quota. As well, GFEs are fixed for
         the year, whereas market prices of species, in absolute and relative terms, may
         fluctuate significantly within a given year.
GSIC further believes that a quota transfer system that requires two-way trades of
equivalent GFEs will favour vessels affiliated with “corporate” fleets; multi-vessel quota-
pools will facilitate allowable trades, while individuals will face genuine difficulty in
finding another independent fishermen with whom to trade.
Should a moratorium come into effect, GSIC estimates that industry’s effectiveness in
harvesting TACs will drop to (or below) 1997 levels. A reduction in harvest
effectiveness of this magnitude has a major impact on vessel and crew incomes. Clearly,
economic benefits under the plan are extremely sensitive to exploitation rates, which, in
turn, appear to be highly dependent upon transferability provisions. Incremental benefits
of higher fish prices can be undone by relatively minor reductions in harvest rates.

3.       “Increase Benefits” Issues
With getting the fish out of the water the key to realizing the benefits available under the
IVQ plan and ongoing quota transfer flexibility is needed to effectively harvest available
TACs, GSIC concluded that the “moratorium” is the single major issue related to
“increasing benefits” under the plan.
GSIC will, prior to issuing a final report, consider the input of the industry at large and
engage in a modeling exercise to more accurately forecast the impact of a quota transfer
moratorium on industry’s ability to get the fish out of the water.

Evaluation of “Distribution of Benefits” Objectives

1.       General Overview
The IVQ / GDA plan specifically seeks to influence the way in which economic and
other benefits derived from the groundfish trawl fishery are divided. The plan recognizes
that the decisions and activities of vessel owners directly impact crewmen, shoreworkers,
and coastal communities, and thereby gives these interests a “say” in the allocation of
quota to vessels. The plan also includes “safeguards” to ensure that rationalization and
concentration under the plan does not exceed levels deemed to be appropriate.
The GDA is the mechanism whereby non vessel / quota owning interests exert influence
over the allocation of GDQ and CCQ to vessels. GSIC recognizes that the GDA is a very
new institution, and that Board’s effectiveness in scoring proposals and rendering
allocation advice is improving over time. The GDA is integral to the new groundfish
trawl management plan, and while GSIC has difficulty determining the specific impact

                                           - 13 -                        September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

that the GDA’s GDQ and CCQ allocative advice has had on groundfish markets,
fishermen, employees, and communities, GSIC notes the following.
     q   There is general evidence of stability in the processing sector under the plan.
     q   There is evidence that groundfish trawl catches are increasingly being offloaded
         in coastal communities, though evidence regarding the final processing location
         is inconclusive.
     q   The GDA, through GDQ and CCQ advice, serves as a “conscience” for the
         industry – causing the industry to plan ahead and be mindful of the broader
         impacts of quota usage decisions.
     q   While it is by no means a perfect system, the CCQ, bringing the potential for
         vessels to lose 10% of their individual allocations, strongly encourages vessel
         owners to treat their crews fairly.
     q   There is no doubt that captains and crews are becoming increasingly
         sophisticated in applying techniques for harvesting IVQs. Beyond this, there is
         little evidence of increased industry training opportunities;
     q   The GDA must refine its procedures for comparing prior vessel IVQ
         commitments to actual delivery arrangements and dealing with substantial
         variances from commitments (when complaints are lodged).
While the GDA seeks to encourage vessel owners and processors who generate broad
industry benefits, the holdings cap and transferability provisions of the plan attempt to
ensure that the pitfalls associated with leasing and quota concentration are avoided.
GSIC is comfortable that today’s working fleet is in the 60 – 80 boat range envisioned,
and that this fleet -- in size, numbers, and capability -- is well-suited to current market
conditions. GSIC is content that the plan has allowed vessel owners the flexibility to exit
the fishery or expand their participation depending on individual circumstances. Further,
GSIC is satisfied that, to the extent that “rents” are being extracted from quota transfers,
these rents are largely staying within the “working” fleet. Finally, GSIC believes that, to
the extent that markets remain strong, and experience using the IVQ / GDA system to
fully harvest the TACs grows, there could be pressure for the fleet size to increase, as
smaller loads become increasingly economical. The current “safeguards” in place appear
to be working satisfactorily.

2.       Summary of GSIC Discussions re: Distribution of Benefits

Maintain Existing Processing Capacity
Many of the GDA objectives are to encourage stability and continuity in the groundfish
trawl fishery. The GDA ranking procedure places significant weighting on recent
participation (processing throughput). GSIC has discussed the inherent conflict that this
poses: encouraging stability may inhibit innovation, and lack of a track record serves as a
barrier to entry for those wishing to commence or expand groundfish operations.

                                           - 14 -                        September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

GSIC recognizes that the GDA / GDQ process gives an edge to existing processors,
versus processors seeking to enter or expand in the fishery. The size of the “edge”
however, is not considered major – it has not precluded major new entrants, nor has it
prevented business circumstances from causing hardship for existing firms. In fact, GSIC
believes that the improved business climate which now exists, attracts investment – a
would-be entrant would rather “buy his way in” to an economically sustainable business,
regardless of the GDQ “hurdle”, than invest in a less-regulated fishery with poorer

Groundfish Development Authority
The establishment of the GDA reflects the agreement of GSIC that, under a quota plan,
the entire influence and benefit from the groundfish trawl fishery would not accrue only
to “T” license owners. With 80% of available quota allocated directly to vessels, the
GDA was established to provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with advice on
how the balance of the quota, 20%, would be allocated to vessels. The intent of reserving
20% of groundfish and hake quota for allocation to vessels according to the advice of the
GDA was to “reward” those vessel owners and processors who conducted their business
according to the objectives of the GDA. The “carrot” of obtaining the 10% GDQ and
10% CCQ allocation, would thus encourage individuals to work towards the achieving
the “vision” of the GDA.

Specific Tasks of the GDA
While the GDA was established to encourage attainment of a host of industry objectives,
its core task – providing advice to the Minister of Fisheries on allocation of the
Groundfish Development Quota (GDQ) and Code of Conduct Quota (CCQ) – is
relatively narrow. Evaluation of the GDA will therefore focus on the effectiveness of the
GDA in delivering high quality allocative advice to the Minister.

GDA Structure
GSIC is satisfied that the formal structure, or design, of the GDA gives the organization a
reasonable chance to fulfill its mandate, providing the structure is fully functional.
GSIC believes that the current cost of running the GDA is reasonable, that there is no
evidence of “extravagance” in fees or expenses and that the “out-of-pocket” expense
inflicts no undue hardship on industry. GSIC members are well-aware of the time and
energy required to prepare and present high-quality GDQ proposals, and while the effort
is not always welcome, they feel that the process of compiling a submission (forming
groups, planning one year ahead, reviewing past successes and failures) is in itself
GSIC judges that the Executive Director is fulfilling his responsibilities capably, within
the constraints under which he is operating. GSIC also notes that the key work of the
GDA – evaluating and ranking GDQ proposals – is forced into a very condensed time
frame. In 1999, GDQ proposals were due from industry on May 15, and
recommendations were forwarded to DFO by the GDA on June 2. Despite a two-week

                                           - 15 -                       September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

turnaround, the formal allocation of GDQ was not made until July 26, 1999. Key
recommendation deadlines are being met by the GDA, delays in the process are occurring
at the bureaucratic and political levels, not from within the GDA.
GSIC recognizes the Board is, by design, comprised of non-industry members, and that
these “arms-length” individuals will exert some influence on the livelihoods of “active”
participants. Given this design, however, GSIC finds that it is crucial that the Board
members take their responsibilities seriously, that membership continuity has to be
maintained, and, where required, that the Board be given the opportunity to draw upon
industry expertise. Equally important, they must be furnished with all of the information
they require to draw informed conclusions in a timely and presentable manner.
With the caveats noted, GSIC believes that the GDA, as structured, is reasonably fit to
deliver allocation advice on its two core programs: the GDQ and the CCQ.

Groundfish Development Quota
GDQ is allocated to those processor / vessel groups whose proposals are deemed by the
GDA Board to be most closely aligned with the objectives of the GDA. Proposals are
evaluated and ranked considering: the extent to which the proposal contributes to the
achievement of the GDQ objectives, the total IVQ commitment of proponents, the
processing history of the applicant, and evidence of adherence to previously submitted
In formulating a rating for a proposal, the GDA must clearly make some difficult
judgments. Provision of advice on GDQ proposals is the primary function of the GDA.
In evaluating the effectiveness of GDQ as a means of achieving GDA objectives, a
critical factor considered by GSIC is that there must be a meaningful “separation” in the
ranking of proposals. For the GDA to be relevant, it must allocate those proposals
deemed to be good with significantly higher quantities of quota than the proposals
deemed lacking.

GDQ Program
GSIC has determined that the following are keys to the GDA providing meaningful
proposal rankings.
   q    Willingness by the Board to differentiate proposals, where there are a spectrum
        of scores, there should be significant allocation differences between the “high”
        and the “low.”
   q    Access to all of the information required to thoroughly assess a proposal – most
        notably, the actual track records of processors and vessels compared to
        commitments made in prior plans.
   q    Effort by the Board to ensure that it has utilized and considered all accessible
        relevant information.
GSIC notes that there has been a significant “spread” in the proposal rankings, and that
there tend to be two “clusters”: a cluster of the bona fide proposals, which tend to score
similarly high, and a cluster of the poor proposals, which tend to score similarly low. It is

                                           - 16 -                        September, 1999
              GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                             Discussion Paper

critical that poor proposals not receive significant allocations under the GDQ, and this
would appear to happening. GSIC further believes that the GDA is developing a sense
for differentiating valid from invalid proposals.
In order to apply a sound allocation system, the GDA requires specific information on the
landings of each vessel, in reality vs. the prior years’ GDQ plan. At this stage, the GDA
lacks comprehensive individual vessel delivery information. Although each vessel
involved with a GDQ is required to complete a prior years Vessel Delivery Summary
form, the forms are in fact only sporadically completed.
In the absence of concrete vessel delivery information, the GDA has only anecdotal
evidence to rely on, regarding the extent to which vessels are fulfilling delivery
commitments. The GDA cannot clearly differentiate between proposals to a meaningful
extent, when relying on anecdotal or “work of mouth” information. The GDA must have
at its disposal comprehensive vessel delivery records in the future in order to make more
meaningful allocation decisions.
While it is reasonable for the GDA to expect GDQ proponents to fulfill their pre-season
commitments – which directly result in increased fishing opportunities for vessels –
GSIC realizes that relationships between processors and vessels can abruptly change for a
host of valid reasons. Once a proper system of identifying vessel deliveries is
established, the GDA must refine a framework for discerning and differentiating
“acceptable” variations from commitments from those commitments that violate the spirit
and intent of the GDQ.

Code of Conduct Quota
CCQ was established as a tool to ensure that, under the IVQ program, crew members are
treated fairly and equitably. In developing an IVQ plan, GSIC was concerned that the
plan could result in crew members being levied “new” charges for lease / purchase of
quota, and / or that unsafe vessel operating practices (i.e., fewer crew men per vessel,
inadequate vessel maintenance) could develop.

           Table 3 – Pro and Con Discussion on CCQ Effectiveness
   Factors Indicating Success of CCQ                Factors Indicating Failure of CCQ
                Program                                          Program
Many factors point to improved working
conditions for crewmen under the IVQ plan:
§ The end of the “race for fish” means that
   vessels operate far less in inclement
§ Less 24-hour fishing, with less “total
   towing time” crews get more sleep than
   under “derby” system
§ Each vessel has a fishing schedule for the
   year, with fishing patterns more
   predictable, crews have more stable jobs;
   crews have better family lives, and “job

                                           - 17 -                      September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

    sharing” is emerging as a lifestyle
§ There is no evidence that crew
    compliments per vessel have dropped
§ Turnover of crews seems to be reduced --
    evidence of contentment with jobs?
Fish prices have risen since IVQ plan             Some fishermen are not convinced that their
implementation and crew shares have risen as      “take home” pay is higher, after lease and
well.                                             other costs are deducted
Good crews are important in the trawl fishery     Some crews do not feel well treated…
since the IVQ plan makes fishermen
individually accountable for their actions so
skilled, experienced, crews are vital; as an
important asset, crews are well-treated
The risk of a 10% quota hold-back under the       The dynamic of the CCQ, i.e., a successful
CCQ provides a significant incentive for          complaint by a crewman results in less quota
vessel owners to ensure that their crews are      for that crewman’s vessel, is inherently
happy most vessel owners are well-aware of        flawed and may inhibit the filing of
the CCQ sanction process, and are well-           complaints. The CCQ presents a classic
motivated to avoid sanction. The GDA has          “catch-22” for crew members. Crewmen may
received few inquires about CCQ and no            also be intimidated by captains and fellow
formal complaints.                                crew members.
Fishermen members of GSIC report that many        Some fishermen are reported to feel that they
crews are now involved with their vessels’        are charged for quota, without understanding
fishing plans i.e., suggesting more quota         or influencing the decision.
leases, harvesting strategies, etc.

Effectiveness of “Safeguards” in IVQ / GDA Plan

Avoid Pitfalls Associated with Leasing and Quota Concentration
GSIC believes that the safeguards in the plan have quite successfully thwarted a
proliferation of leasing and undue rationalization and concentration. While leasing
(quota transfers for money) and rationalization are certainly occurring under the plan, the
scope is not beyond that which was deemed acceptable in the IVQ / GDA “agreement.”
GSIC is aware that some individuals are likely operating in ways which violate the spirit
and intent of the plan – for instance, settlement practices which are unfair to crews – but
believes that these are relatively isolated cases.
The safeguards in the plan (holdings caps, CCQ sanctions, etc.) are considered too
restrictive by some, serving as impediments to free enterprise, and too lax by others, as
they allow loopholes for abuse. Overall, however, these measures seem to strike a
reasonable balance.
The safeguard, which attracted the greatest discussion amongst GSIC members, of
course, is the “moratorium” on quota transfers.

                                               - 18 -                        September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

“Moratorium” as a Safeguard Against Rationalization
The shape and extent of fleet rationalization to-date has closely mirrored that which was
forecast by GSIC at the time of plan implementation. GSIC feels that the current fleet
size and structure is appropriate for the resource and market conditions prevailing in the
fishery – that is, the fleet has “found its level”.

 Figure 1 – Groundfish Fleet Size Comparison (active vessels, all options)







                         1983 - 1986   1987 - 1990    1991 - 1995   98/99
             # Vessels       88           107            115         88

A major concern at the time of plan implementation was that, if quota transferability
flexibility was ongoing under the plan, the fleet could continue to “collapse” in size, to
the extent that holdings of quota would be unduly concentrated, and crew employment
would be unacceptably reduced.
GSIC no longer believes that a continuation of existing quota transferability rules would
lead to significant additional reduction in the fleet, for the following reasons.
   q    A smaller fleet implies that economic incentives are geared towards “harvesting
        large quantities of fish in a short time.” In fact, a steady supply of high-quality
        fish which services markets appears to be the “formula” for success, now.
   q    Large vessels with large holdings caps have tended to decrease their level of
        participation, “medium” sized boats are increasing.
   q    There is considerable economic incentive for smaller boats with modest quota
        holdings to “dabble” in the fishery, e.g., pursue niche markets / live markets, etc..
   q    Given market considerations, GSIC feels that a 60-80 boat fleet is optimal for
        landing desired quantities of target species on a regular schedule. Significantly
        fewer boat would likely generate a more “feast and famine” landings pattern.
GSIC believes, then, that a continuation of current transferability regulations will result in
a fleet whose composition closely resembles the current configuration. GSIC notes that

                                             - 19 -                         September, 1999
               GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                              Discussion Paper

ready transferability allows the fleet to adjust to short- and long-term changes in market
conditions. A fleet that is responsive to changing market conditions is a pre-requisite to
long term success in the groundfish trawl fishery.
Conversely, GSIC believes that a moratorium on one-way quota transfers will trigger an
immediate round of further rationalization in the trawl fleet. Quota will tend to
accumulate on the vessels with large holdings caps. “Getting the fish out of the water”
will be accomplished through large accumulations of quota on relatively few vessels,
rather than the current (complex) system of transfers amongst a larger number of vessels.

Moratorium as a Safeguard Against Quota “Leasing”
While GSIC judges that a moratorium will have the unintended effect of encouraging
further fleet rationalization, it acknowledges that the “threat” of a moratorium, which has
thus far existed under the plan, has had the intended effect of discouraging “investors”
from buying quota solely for the purpose of leasing it out to earn income. Without
transferability, a quota holder must operate a vessel and earn income through fishing.
Being forced to actively engage in the groundfish trawl fishery – a complex fishery, hard
on gear and vessel – is a significant deterrent to a would-be investor seeking a “paper”
The extent to which the moratorium has discouraged investment in quota was the subject
of debate. Given the nature of quota transfer guidelines (that is, all transfers are
considered permanent by DFO), there is really no such thing as leasing under the plan.
Quota transfers, though generally supported by legal agreements, are only “safe” (the
lessor can be assured he will get his quota back) when the parties are known and trusted
by one another. Thus, under the ongoing system of (one-way permanent) quota
transferability, investment by individuals who are external to the industry is risky.

3.       “Distribution of Benefits” Issues
The following are the primary issues highlighted in GSIC discussions pertaining to the
effectiveness of the IVQ / GDA plan in achieving its envisioned distribution of benefits.
     q   The need for the GDA to refine its evaluation procedures in rendering allocation
         advice, including timetables for reviewing proposals, collection of necessary
         information, and continued dedication of effort by Board Members.
     q   Recognition of the “catch-22” / intimidation factor imposed on crewmen under
         the CCQ complaints process.
     q   Assessment that a quota transfer moratorium would have an un-intended effect –
         that of escalating fleet rationalization, rather than curbing it.
     q   Recognition that the impending moratorium on quota transfers as a safeguard that
         may discourage “outsiders” from buying, holding, and leasing-out quota.

                                           - 20 -                       September, 1999
              GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                             Discussion Paper


This discussion paper represents GSIC’s initial assessment of the IVQ / GDA plan.
Combining objective and subjective evaluation, the paper is intended to stimulate input
and discussion from the groundfish trawl industry and interested members of the industry
and public at large.
GSIC would like to hear your opinions on the performance of the IVQ / GDA plan to
date and your recommendations for improvements. You can make their opinions /
suggestions known by:
   q    Attending one of three public meetings:
              -   Nanaimo:           10 am; Tuesday, October 12, 1999
                                     Location: Coast Bastion
              -   Vancouver:         10 am; Wednesday, October 13, 1999;
                                     Location: SFU Downtown
              -   Prince Rupert:     1 pm; Friday, October 15, 1999;
                                     Location: Coast Prince Rupert Hotel
   q    Contacting a GSIC or GTAC Member with your comments, preferably in
        writing, by 30 October 1999.
All input received from consultations will be summarized by the facilitator and
considered by GSIC for their final report to the Minister(s).

                                          - 21 -                      September, 1999
              GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                             Discussion Paper

     Groundfish Trawl Special Industry Subcommittee (GSIC)

                              (as of September 15, 1999)

Name                    Address                           Phone            Fax

Chatwin, Murray         Ocean Fisheries Ltd.              (604) 254-5751   (604) 254-0957
                        2305 Commissioner St.
                        Vancouver, B.C. V5L 1A4
Davison, Rose           Coastal Communities Network       (250) 726-7445   (250) 726-2122
                        Notary Public
                        Box 549, 1621 Larch Road
                        Ucluelet, B.C. V0R 3A0
Humphreys, Bob          Groundfish Development                             (250) 746-4961
                                                          (250) 746-4961
                        1736 Maple Bay Road
                        Duncan, B.C. V9L 5N6
Joyce, Marilyn          Manager,                          (604) 666 9033   (604) 666- 8525
                        Groundfish Management Unit
                        #460 – 555 West Hastings,
                        Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5G3
McMillan, Dan           J.S. McMillan Fisheries Ltd.      (604) 255-5191   (604) 255-4600
                        2199 Commissioner St.
                        Vancouver, B.C. V5L 1A4
Morreau, Bob            1417 133A Street,                 (604) 531-0656   (604) 681-3474
                        Surrey, B.C. V4A 6M2
Radosevic, John         United Fishermen and Allied       (604) 255-1336   (604) 255-3162
                        Workers Union
                        #160 - 111 Victoria Dr.
                        Vancouver, B.C. V5L 4C4
Smith, Dave             Province of British Columbia      (250) 356-7642   (250) 356-0358
                        Ministry of Fisheries
                        P. O. Box 9359
                        Station Prov Gov t
                        3rd floor, 780 Blanchard Street
                        Victoria, B.C. V8W 9M2
Williams, Allan         Fisher Bay Seafood                (250) 656-8157   (250) 656-8159
                        10230 Bowerbank Road
                        Sidney, B.C. V8L 3X4
Logan, Bruce                   UFAWU                      (604) 255-1336   (604) 255-3162
(alternate for John Radosovic) #160 – 111 Victoria Dr.
                               Vancouver, B.C. V5L 4C4

                                            - 22 -                     September, 1999
                GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                               Discussion Paper

          Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee Contacts

                            (as of September 15, 1999)

Name                   Address                         Phone                Fax

Andersen, Kelly        #1502 – 8811                    (604) 214-0209       (604) 214-0210
                       Lansdowne Road
                       Richmond, B.C. V6C 3T7
Atchison, Lawrence     2101 Graham Avenue,             (250) 624-4510       (250) 624-4510
                       Prince Rupert, B.C.
Buston, Mike           Ucluelet Seafood Processors     (250) 726-7768       (250) 726-4226
                       P.O. Box 589
                       Ucluelet, B.C. V0R 3A0
Chatwin, Murray        Ocean Fisheries Ltd.            (604) 254-5751       (604) 254-0957
                       2305 Commissioner St.
                       Vancouver, B.C. V5L 1A4
Devereaux, Bruce       RR # 6, C-43, Site 676,         (250) 334-3789       (250) 334-2929
                       4098 Gartles Point
                       Courtney, B.C. V9N 8W9
Dickens, Brian         1678 Admiral Tryon Boulevard,   (250) 983-3971
                       Parksville, B.C. V9P 1Y2
Humphreys, Bob         Groundfish Development          (250) 746-4961       (250) 746-4961
                       1736 Maple Bay Road
                       Duncan, B.C. V9L 5N6
Ingram, Bob            #206 288 E. 6th St.             (604) 980-6885       Phone/Fax
                       North Vancouver, B.C.
                       V7L 1P5
McMillan, Dan          J.S. McMillan Fisheries Ltd.    (604) 255-5191       (604) 255-4600
                       2199 Commissioner St.
                       Vancouver, B.C. V5L 1A4
Mose, Brian            641 Hollywood Road              (250) 752-2931       (250) 752-1032
                       Qualicum Beach, B.C.
                       V9K 1M3
Morreau, Bob           1417 133A Street,               (604) 531-0656       (604) 681-3474
                       Surrey, B.C. V4A 6M2
Olsen, Erling          Leader Fishing Co.              (604) 583-4818       (604) 583-1989
                       10663 River Road                (604) 582-2125
                       Delta, B.C. V4C 2R1
Radosevic, John        United Fishermen and Allied     (604) 255-1336       (604) 255-3162
                       Workers Union
                       #160 - 111 Victoria Dr.
                       Vancouver, B.C. V5L 4C4

                                         - 23 -                         September, 1999
                      GSIC – Review of Groundfish Trawl IVQ / GDA Plan
                                     Discussion Paper

Name                         Address                           Phone            Fax

Smith, Dave                  Province of British Columbia      (250) 356-7642   (250) 356-0358
                             Ministry of Fisheries
                             P. O. Box 9359
                             Station Prov Gov t
                             3rd floor, 780 Blanchard Street
                             Victoria, B.C. V8W 9M2
Tryon, Rob                   6980 Seabrook Road                (250) 652-5166   (250) 652-2725
                             Saanichton, B.C. V0S 1M0
Turris, Bruce                Canadian Groundfish and           (604) 524-0005   (604) 524-0150
                             Research Conservation
                             333 Third Street
                             New Westminster, B.C.
                             V3L 2R8
Vaccher, Don                 #340 - 4th Avenue, W.             (250) 624-6839   (250) 627-4682
                             Prince Rupert, B.C. V8J 1P3
Williams, Allan              Fisher Bay Seafood                (250) 656-8157   (250) 656-8159
                             10230 Bowerbank Road
                             Sidney, B.C. V8L 3X4
Zyblut, Edward               Deep Sea Trawlers                 (604) 275-6944   (604) 275-6949
                             #2 - 11771 Horseshoe Way
                             Richmond, B.C. V7A 4V4
Clattenburg, Dave            10525 McGarth Road,               (604) 794-7693   (604) 794-7693
(alternate for Bob Ingram)   Rosedale, B.C.
Logan, Bruce                 UFAWU                             (604) 255-1336   (604) 255-3162
(alternate for John          #160 – 111 Victoria Dr.
                             Vancouver, B.C. V5L 4C4
Dunn, Scott,                 2730 Old Alberni Highway          (250)-752-2870   (250) 752-2870
(alternate for Bruce         Qualicum Beach, B.C.
                             V9R 1X1

                                               - 24 -                      September, 1999

Shared By: