Interview with Pietro Parravano
Pietro Parravano is the past President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, (PCFFA), the west coast's largest organization of commercial fishing families. This year he received the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Environmental Hero Award, and from July 2000 to June 2003, he served on the Pew Oceans Commission. He is also a U.S. Delegate, representing the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers. As a commercial fisherman, leader in coastal marine issues and an environmental hero, Pietro shares our vision of a global ecological economy.
EAG: Hello Pietro. Thank you for agreeing to an interview for the Earth Assets Group website. Congratulations are due on receiving the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Environmental Hero Award. What was that experience like for you?
PP: It was a surprise. For the past six years I have been working with the National Weather Service on an interesting project. The project involved the use of fishermen in providing weather observations so that the National Weather Service could have a more accurate assessment of potential weather disasters. The fishermen are always on the oceans and the
oceans give us many indicators that are not currently being utilized in assessing weather forecasting. These observations can be integrated into the existing network of ocean buoys and satellites. Disasters caused by weather create a large financial burden for society. Our mutual thoughts are that if we can mitigate some of the potential damage by early evacuations and emergency preparedness, then we can reduce the damage done by these storms.
EAG: You've become the “voice of the fisherman”, if not a voice for marine life itself! When and how did you become involved as a devoted advocate of sustainable fishing practices? Could you tell us about your current projects and goals?
PP: I was raised in a very strong academic family. I decided to try commercial fishing after teaching at the Woodside Priory School in Portola Valley , CA . My scale of fishing has always been small. In order to compensate for the small-scale production, I had to look for other economic systems to pursue so that I could justify ‘making a living' in commercial fishing. In this pursuit, I talked with many people and throughout our conversations; the concept of sustainability was evident. At the same time, impacts on the Oceans and its resources were receiving more exposure. Governance of the oceans and its ecosystems were being compromised by national and global factors. Then the finger pointing started at the fishermen. I could see the right and wrong of these accusations.
One of the goals that I am pursuing now is the formation of a national organization of fishermen. The fishermen do not have a national presence—it exists only in fragments. Along with this is the establishment of a professional certification program for fishermen. Just about all skilled laborers and professionals have a program that provides for education, marketing, medical and health benefits, training in resource management, fish quality, navigation and mechanics. I think that society would appreciate knowing that professionals bring the fish harvested in our waters to you. This is especially important now with the assurance of food security.
EAG: You've been stressing the importance of linking activities on the land with sustainable management of the ocean resources. Could you tell us more about the interconnectedness of those practices, in your view?
PP: As time goes on and the human population continues to grow, the connection becomes much more evident and true. More than half the population of the United States lives in the coastal counties. Yet, these counties comprise just 17% of the nation's land area. As a result, population density along the coasts is about five times the national average. The latest census data indicates that this population will increase by 20% by 2015. With this population shift comes new development pressure, increasing demand for housing, water, food, recreation, waste disposal, roads and cars. This is polluting the water and air and endangering coastal habitats. Habitat destruction and the decline of coastal water quality are the primary threats to species with which we share the coastal environment. Urban sprawl contributed to the decline of 188 of the 286 California species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act, making it the leading cause of species decline in California .
EAG : That is a distressing trend. So what needs to be done in order to improve the management of watersheds to ensure marine ecosystem integrity and sustainable fisheries for the future?
PP: National oceans policy and governance must be realigned to reflect and apply principles of ecosystem health, integrity and sustainability. We must redefine our relationship with the ocean to reflect an understanding of the land-sea connection and organize institutions and forums capable of managing on an ecosystem basis.
We are fundamentally changing the natural ecosystems that attract us to the coasts. In some areas, we have converted expansive wetlands into cities. In others we have converted sand dunes into irrigated golf courses and subdivisions. The problem is just not one of population; our patterns of land use amplify the effects of population growth on coastal ecosystems. In addition, government agencies and programs have engaged in environmentally harmful development in coastal watersheds for decades.
The population explosion on our coasts will continue. It is up to us to manage that development in ways that protect coastal ecosystems. If not, we will find ourselves impoverished, along with our coasts.
EAG: You've been stressing the importance of marketplace incentives to improve management of both marine and terrestrial natural resources. Can you tell us why you believe the marketplace is prepared to address these needs?
PP: Sustainability doesn't come cheaply, although for the long-term it really is our only option. If fishing men and women work to assure their fishing practices are sustainable; work to protect against overfishing, harming or killing other marine life or damaging fish habitats; work to prevent pollution, the loss of wetlands and other critical habitats; work to protect our rivers, bays, estuaries and marine environments; then they should be rewarded in the marketplace. Sustainable fishing can mean catching less, or using gear that is more expensive, or just taking a lot of time off the water to lobby, litigate or educate for protection of fish stocks and their habitats. It comes at a financial cost for those of us who choose to act responsibly to fish stocks and the environment.
One obvious way of rewarding those who are engaging in sustainable practices - whether it is fishermen, or farmers, ranchers or loggers - is to mandate some form of labeling so consumers can at least distinguish the good guys from the bad guys 1. Long before I became involved with Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the organization initiated legislation at the state level requiring the labeling of seafood as to its species – since a lot of fish is mislabeled in the marketplace; its origin – that is, where it was from; how it was caught and whether it was wild or farmed. That 1981 legislation did not go very far. However, labeling and consumer education was something both PCFFA and the Institute for Fisheries Resources supported when I was president and continue to do so to this day.
Without good labeling laws it is impossible for consumers to make informed choices in the marketplace. With strong labeling laws in place it makes our education and promotion programs much more effective, such as the industry funded programs that exist at the state level, including the programs of groups such as the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission, the California Salmon Council and so many others.
We've supported groups such as the Seafood Choices Alliance, a consortium of some of the nation's better chefs working with conservation and fishing groups, that have been invaluable in helping to educate restaurateurs and consumers alike about sustainable seafood, where to find it and how to prepare it.
We've also worked to develop seafood guides for consumers about sustainably harvested fish. We've dealt extensively with the staff of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which is developing regional consumer guides. While we may not always agree with their selections, they are following objective criteria and this is a good beginning.
Finally, I have to mention that the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an international organization that promotes responsible fishing practices and have begun following rigid objective criteria for certifying fish. As more fish go through the MSC certification process I think our local fishermen, as well as fishing communities nationally and internationally that are fishing responsibly, will benefit by getting a leg-up in the marketplace competing with non-sustainably caught fish. For fishing men and women, MSC certification is like the USDA organic label for meats and produce, or the Forest Stewardship Council certification for sustainably cut timber.
The marketplace can, I believe, be a powerful force for rewarding sustainable practices, including those in fisheries, when good consumer information – such as accurate and complete labeling and education programs are in place.
EAG: In researching coastal marine issues, I've frequently come across information about individual fishing quotas (IFQ's). Would you mind giving our readers an overview on IFQ's and their relationship to the environmental marketplace?
PP: IFQ's, also referred to as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), are a fishery management tool that divides up the total allowable catch for a fishery in a given season or year among the participants in that fishery. The allocation can be an equal division of the catch among the participants or, as is most often the case, divisions can be made on the basis of an individual's past catch history. If the quotas are transferable then the various participants can buy, sell, lease or rent quota, depending on how the system is structured, either to or from other participants in the fishery or even to those who don't fish including fish processors or banks.
In theory, transferable IFQs sound like a great idea. There are a lot of folks out there promoting them as some kind of “silver bullet” for fishery conservation and management. The theory is that with individual quotas, fishermen can choose when they want to fish, which could be when the markets are best or the weather is favorable. IFQs could help end “derby fishing” or the “race to fish.” Moreover, participants could possibly use the IFQs in the marketplace, as opposed to trying to manipulate more catch through the regulatory system -- to purchase additional quota if they want to fish more, or to sell some of their quota if they wish to fish less or retire. This is what some refer to as “rationalization” as the ownership of quota becomes more concentrated. Further, because participants hold, or “own” quota the idea is they will be better stewards – able to think and plan around the long-term health of the resource, instead of simply seeking short-term gain.
In a sense IFQs are like market economies or football – to work they need a comprehensive set of rules in place or they simply cannot work. The problems with IFQs are as follows:
First, not every fishery is under quota management. A number of fisheries are managed by seasons, gear limitations, etc, and sustainably so. Thus, at the outset, IFQs could not work for fisheries where no quota has been set. And in some cases they may note be needed.
Second, determining who is eligible for a quota and how much is extremely difficult, if it is to be done fairly. Undoubtedly, surveys of IFQ systems, such as Alaska 's halibut and sablefish IFQ system, will find a lot of happy participants. The problem is that surveys are never done of those who participated in the fishery but were eliminated by the quota system. These systems, to be fair, have to be inclusive at the outset of those who are in a fishery.
Third, as we've found in a number of these programs, ownership to the quota can end up being held by non-fishermen, such as fish processors or banks. Fishermen, rather than benefiting from such systems, end up far worse than they were prior to adoption of an IFQ system, essentially relegated to being “seagoing sharecroppers”. How are fishermen to get the best price for fish, or fish when the weather is calm, if a fish processor owns the quota they are fishing under? And it's not clear how stewardship can be fostered when a corporation holds quota ownership and has shareholders fretting about the size of the next quarter's dividend. The Alaska halibut and sablefish IFQ system does at least restrict ownership of quota to its fishermen participants. Policies like these may be important in many places if a fishery is to be restored and managed sustainably.
Fourth, ownership shares in a fishery, without limits as to how much a single individual can hold, can wind up being concentrated in the hands of a small group, creating an anticompetitive situation over a public resource. Most of the IFQ systems lack adequate safeguards to protect against this kind of concentration.
Fifth, there is the issue of paying for such systems. IFQs are expensive to administer, ranging from the cost of enforcement to ensure against high-grading – the practice of dumping less valuable catch for fish that is more valuable, to simply keeping track of landings to assure each person does not exceed their allotted quota. To date, most of these systems have had to be subsidized either with public monies or from revenues, such as permit and license fees, from other fisheries.
All this is to say IFQs are not a panacea. Before any more of these systems are established, it's important that national standards are put in place to protect against future problems or abuse.
EAG: Would you say that ITQ's can be compared to land property rights, or would you compare them to property ‘rents'?
PP: You raise another interesting question here regarding the issue of what kind of right or privileges IFQs constitute. Whether an IFQ is to be treated as a privilege, a rental, a quasiproperty right or an actual property right, is a good question. The answer will depend upon how a particular system is drafted. This issue alone is reason enough for needing national standards in place before proceeding with any more of these systems. The debate on whether or what kind of property right IFQs constitute is not unlike that now taking place with water in the west and its transfer. In both instances – water and fish – we're talking about public trust resources. There needs to be a full discussion as to whether and under what conditions these public resources should be transferred to private ownership. A big problem we will encounter is if we proceed with IFQ systems without defining the length of such programs or how long a quota can be held. If we're not careful in how this is done, we could be faced with a “takings” issue if quotas are reduced or systems eliminated.
EAG: If IFQs aren't a panacea, as you say, without national standards being put in place, what other solutions could help creating more sustainable and profitable market-based solutions for commercial ocean fishing?
PP: The principles of market-based solutions are high quality products and requests for those products. It is important that any plan for creating sustainable and profitable market –based solutions is implemented both at the fisherman end and at the consumer end of the process.
In other words, the success of any solution requires abundant fish stocks on one side and consumer demand on the other side. Examples of providing for abundant fish stocks are limited entry programs and habitat restoration programs. Examples of creating consumer demand are education, labeling and certification. A mechanism that could carry out this process could involve the concept of establishing a trust fund based on user fees. This trust fund would be based on all seafood sold in the U.S. The revenue from the trust fund would be used to fund research programs. These programs would encompass all the issues that could provide for more fish stocks—stock assessment, water quality, and habitats are some examples. Also, the trust fund can be used for creating the consumer demand—the use of labels, certification and distribution are some examples. I can see where this would help create that economic balance that is the cornerstone of sustainable fishing and profitable market based solutions.
EAG: EAG, in cooperation with others, has been interested in testing a comprehensive IFQ program somewhere along the west coast -- perhaps in Monterey Bay , Half Moon Bay, or another location somewhere between Baja and Puget Sound . Would a full-scale test of such programs, using real world circumstances, be a good thing in your opinion?
PP: No, not until some national standards are put in place. There is a good bill right now in the House, HR 2621, by Representatives Allen, Delahunt, Simmons, Capps, George Miller and others, to establish national IFQ standards that we all should be working to pass and get signed first, prior to charging head-long into developing any new IFQ system. The National
Marine Fisheries Service before it starts promoting IFQs, or offshore aquaculture for that matter, should be crafting standards for Congressional consideration. In the case of both IFQs and aquaculture, NMFS has got the cart before the horse.
EAG: Do you think PCFFA, or another fishermen's association, would be interested in helping design and implement such a program?
PP: The PCFFA Board is made up of some highly intelligent individuals who've managed to save at least one and probably more fisheries in a state where fish and fishermen were planned for extinction. I respect their knowledge and have a great deal of faith in their wisdom. Their staff also has considerable experience and has been responsible for crafting much of California 's progressive fisheries legislation over the past twenty-five years. If the PCFFA Board and the fishermen, after listening to the arguments and careful consideration, decide an IFQ is a good idea for a particular fishery then, of course, it would be involved in drafting and implementing such a program. It would be remiss in its responsibilities if it did not.
EAG: Thank you so much for your time Pietro. We wish you much good fortune in your future endeavors!
1 For additional thoughts about sustainable resource labeling, see the Earth Assets Group profile for Dr. Rona Fried, CEO of Sustainablebusiness.com, January 18, 2004.
2 See http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec01.htm for additional information.
For more information about Pietro Parravano and his cause, explore the following links:
Published Link: http://earth-assets.com/pdfs/profile_parravano.pdf
Copyright© 2004 by the Earth Assets Group. All rights reserved. For citation information or permission to reprint contact Tena Moore
return to bios |
