Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Coastal Vitality Project
Fisheries Focus Groups A Summary and Discussion of Findings
Focus groups facilitated and analyzed by:
Jeremy Stone
July 27th, 2010
!
2
Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................3
Background ..........................................................................................................................................................5
Locations and Participant Demographics ..........................................................................................................5
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................6
Findings ................................................................................................................................................................6
I. General Perception and Understanding of the Disaster........................................................................7
II. Work and Skills ........................................................................................................................................8
A. Current employment with BP or elsewhere .....................................................................................8
B. Current skill sets .................................................................................................................................8
C. Repurposing boats..............................................................................................................................9
D. Retraining and pursuing new opportunities ...................................................................................10
E. Age of fishermen and its impact on perceived opportunities .......................................................11
F. Limited-‐English proficiency and citizenship issues.........................................................................12
G. Relocation to pursue different opportunities.................................................................................13
III. Oil Spill Response .................................................................................................................................13
A. Possible claims packages..................................................................................................................13
B. Debt forgiveness ...............................................................................................................................14
C. Boat buy-‐back programs ..................................................................................................................14
D. Fisheries subsidy programs and aquaculture .................................................................................15
E. Focusing on clean-‐up and coastal restoration................................................................................15
Summary Analysis and Recommendations .....................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Focus Group Questionnaire ........................................................................................................18
3
Caucasian focus group in Lafitte
Executive Summary Between July 19th and July 25th GNO Inc. held 10 focus groups in the Southeast region of Louisiana (Plaquemines, St. Bernard, Jefferson, and Orleans) to understand the needs of commercial fishermen as it related to an oil spill disaster response. These focus groups interviewed 75 fishermen from a variety of backgrounds, locations, and industry sub-‐divisions. Findings have been summarized here along with recommendations for future programming. Commercial fishermen have endured years of hardship, including increased competition from imports, shrinking incomes, and hurricanes. While most fishermen agree that the oil spill is a significant disaster, there’s no clear indication that they think this is the “end of commercial fishing”. In some quarters there’s even cautious optimism that this may yet blow over.
If the impact from the oil spill is more profound though, commercial fishermen are not particularly prepared for finding new careers. They have few skills outside of commercial fishing, and have a hard time seeing how informal skills like mechanics or carpentry are viable skills for new businesses. Commercial fishermen also face numerous barriers to finding new jobs, ranging from the lack of formal
education or literacy, to advancing age, poor health, and lack of resources to move forward.
When transitioning into new careers was discussed, there was little enthusiasm in training for new skills. Participants felt that they are either too old or too uneducated to learn new skills. This was not true for all groups however – Cambodian and Latino fishermen seemed enthusiastic about new opportunities, and
Cambodian-‐American focus group in Buras
4
fishermen who already came to the table with niche skills felt that they were capable of doing new things. Moreover, when discussions moved back to job opportunities that could keep fishermen in their
boats or on the coast, such as working in the oil and gas industry or on coastal restoration projects, there was also some enthusiasm because these jobs were the closest to commercial fishing.
Claims packages were also discussed in order to see what fishermen thought they might receive, and what impact packages could have on their future. Commercial fishermen run the gamut in terms of debt loads, value of assets, and
income levels, so it was hard for them to see how claims
processes could adequately compensate them for leaving the fisheries. Furthermore, without significant cash components, it was hard for them to think of leaving the fisheries, even if there were no jobs left on the coast.
These findings provide a number of principles for program design. Instead of creating broad, generic programs that appeal to the largest numbers, offerings should be targeted to specific niche interests that motivated fishermen will pursue. This may be on the “transformative” level where individual fishermen get the full support to do something radically new, or it may be in more familiar territory where small bursts of skill building could prepare them for transition down the road. In either case, programs should be varied, targeted to clusters of participants, subsidized with living stipends, and integrated into the pursuit of BP jobs or other opportunities that are current and viable. Case management should also be a central component in order to deal with the myriad challenges that commercial fishermen face. Finally, integrating “green” projects or other coastal initiatives that keep fishermen local and on the water could have a better chance of success than programs which move fishermen to a new place, and new career.
African-‐American focus group in Pointe a la Hache
Latino focus group in Port Sulphur
5
Background Following the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling explosion, GNO Inc. began formulating a programmatic response for affected industries. This has included a program concept called “FishForward” that seeks to meet the needs of commercial fishermen, dock-‐owners, and seafood processors. FishForward has been primarily focused on understanding worst case scenarios, and designing program activities that are sensitive to the possibilities that those scenarios entail. In order to better understand the disaster’s impact and the viability of FishForward ideas, GNO Inc. sponsored a series of focus groups with members of the commercial fishing and seafood industries. This report is provided as a summary of findings and a proposal for recommended actions.
Locations and Participant Demographics Between July 19th and July 25th we held 10 focus groups in four parishes of the Southeast region of Louisiana (Plaquemines, St. Bernard, Jefferson, and Orleans). The focus group breakdown includes the following :
During the focus groups we interviewed 75 individuals, including captains, deckhands, dock owners, dockhands, and seafood purveyors. There was a good cross-‐section of fishers who harvest oysters and shrimp, but there were only a few crabbers, and no fin-‐fishers that we know of. Seafood purveyors were either storefront seafood shops, or independent sellers (at farmers’ markets or by the roadside). We met with fishers of most local ethnicities including Caucasians, African-‐Americans, Vietnamese-‐Americans, Cambodian-‐Americans, Croatian-‐Americans, and Latin-‐Americans. Some of the sessions were held in English, while others (in limited English-‐proficiency communities) were co-‐facilitated with Sandy Nguyen of Coastal Communities Consulting (CCC), who translated or provided translation services from local language speakers. Participants were primarily male. Female participants included seafood purveyors, fishermen’s wives, and one commercial fisherwoman.
!"#$%&' ()*+ ,#-)*.#/ 0++*./1&23)-+ 4*5/.-.*6 2)"*.-.%)/*7! !"#$%& '()*+,- ./%,0 120-3+40,0 56 67#$%& 8/9-):/%9;</3 =/+- >+%;+,2+3 ?? 67#$%& 8/9-):/%9;</3 =/+- 120-3+40,0 @@ 67#$%& 8/23-0)+)&+).+;<0 A/;B CD92;+3#C4E 5
F 66#$%& ><+&40--0>/44%32-G)>03-09
>+%;+,2+3)H)>9/+-2+3 I
5 6?#$%& J+D2--0 K0,-+%9+3- >+%;+,2+3 !?L 6@#$%& 8/9-)M%&N<%9 O9+2&09)8+9B J+-23/ !?I 6@#$%& =%9+, ./%,0 >+4P/Q2+3 !?" 6@#$%& =%9+, ./%,0 120-3+40,0 ?!7 6F#$%& '()*+,- >/DD00)M</N 120-3+40,0 5
8#*)3 9:
6
We had a range of boats from 17’ aluminum skiffs to +100’steel-‐hull freezer boats. There was a variety of gear types including skimmers, trawlers, dredgers, and crab boats. A significant number of participants had BP jobs, but a slight majority did not.
Methodology Our methodology focused on ensuring a diversity of responses, getting an informative critique of our ideas thus far, and providing direct support to commercial fishermen. In order to cover the most sub-‐divisions of the commercial fishing community, we asked heads of fisheries associations (including the Louisiana Shrimp Association, the United Commercial Fishermen’s Association, and the Louisiana Oystermen Association) to invite members who could provide critical feedback on our work. We also worked with community liaisons to invite participants from more isolated communities like Cambodian captains and Latino dockhands. We located all focus groups in the field, making sure to only visit locations that commercial fishermen could conveniently and comfortably attend. Several contacts generously provided their homes for our meetings, and other community members provided their facilities as well. The discussions were group-‐oriented. The facilitators asked pre-‐written questions and the participants were encouraged to respond in any formal or informal manner that they chose. All findings were qualitative in nature; no quantitative data or statistical sampling was utilized. The questions were divided into three sections: Perception of the Disaster, Work and Skills, and Oil Spill Response. The interview sheet is appended to this report. Perception questions focused on how catastrophic the participants think the oil spill is. An emphasis was put on how long they thought the damage would last, and what the worst-‐case scenario might be. Work and skills questions focused on what skills commercial fishermen have, what skills they would be capable of or interested in learning, and what industries they might want to transition into if commercial fishing ends. Response questions focused on what kind of benefits and services that fishermen might expect (or respect), and what kind of programs that organizations like GNO Inc. could provide for them. All the underlying components of possible claims scenarios and GNO Inc.’s “FishForward” concept were discussed, including boat buy-‐back programs, amounts of disaster debt and debt forgiveness, cash payouts, business technical assistance, advanced skills training, workforce training, job placement, ESL programs, green business, and participants’ own entrepreneurial aspirations. Following each focus group, participants were compensated for their time with donations of $100 per participant from GNO Inc. Recipients were asked to provide identification like commercial fishing licenses, social security numbers, and ITIN numbers (for non-‐citizens) that could be used to verify participation in the commercial fishing industry.
Findings Focus group participants were very receptive to the interviews, and provided detailed feedback on our questions. However, there was a great deal of uncertainty. Since the ecological effects are still unknown,
7
many fishers had a difficult time accepting or thinking about worst case scenarios. Some participants were hostile to the notion of a collapse of the fisheries and refused to speculate on the future. The findings covered many topics. The following are findings segmented by category and topic, and recommendations for incorporating the findings into GNO’s overall approach. I. General Perception and Understanding of the Disaster Almost all of the fishermen interviewed thought the oil spill is “bad”, but the perceived consequences of the disaster varied widely. Some fishermen thought they could be back in the water this year, while others thought the impact could last for 20 years or more. The amount of oil that fishermen have physically seen has made an impact on how bad they think the oil spill is. At one of the Vietnamese-‐American sessions, it appeared that those with BP jobs skimming oil thought of the disaster as much less catastrophic. Spending hours each day searching for oil in the Gulf with only small sightings has given the impression that there’s not much oil out there. On the other hand, fishermen from the same group who have worked on fire crews burning oil thought that the Gulf is inundated with oil. Many fishermen reported being more worried about the effect of dispersants than oil. One participant in Lafitte said “We’ve had oil naturally seeping into the Gulf for centuries. There are natural organisms that will deal with it. But these dispersants… that’s what could destroy the fisheries”. There was also broad agreement that there is much more oil under the water that can’t be seen, and it’s unknown how much of that will enter the estuaries. Oil under the water was also expected to heavily impact trawling since dragging trawl door along the oil-‐soaked sea floor will destroy product and equipment. Almost everyone agreed that the oysters would be hardest hit because they are stationary. The other species might be able to go elsewhere and return when the worst is over. A number of fishermen thought that the short reproductive cycle of shrimp would allow them to recover quickly. Some fishermen thought that the ecological effect was less meaningful than the market perception of Louisiana seafood products. Across racial and other demographic lines individuals thought that the country’s perception of the oil spill would create much deeper and longer-‐term consequences than the spill itself. They were also worried about catching any contaminated product since it would reinforce the perception that Louisiana seafood is unsafe. Few participants expected a worst case scenario of total loss. Most thought that some middle ground was likely, though there was no agreement on what that may be. On average, most participants thought that the disaster would affect the fisheries for at least 3 to 5 years, if not longer. But “affect” meant something more ambiguous that total loss. Regardless of how long the fishermen thought the disaster would last, they seemed to think that fishing would continue in some form. The oil might “kill a lot of [seafood] babies” but there would still be product out there. In a show of possible fishing hubris, some fishers felt that they would survive on the remaining product, even as early as this year’s August shrimp season. One impression taken from these meetings is that fishermen are disaster veterans. Having persevered through so many disasters, it is difficult for many commercial fishermen to accept the gravity of this one.
8
That's not saying that they aren't acutely aware of the possibilities of total loss, but they are in no rush to accept the worst-‐case scenario. Fishermen do not believe that commercial fishing could be over in Louisiana. II. Work and Skills A. Current employment with BP or elsewhere Less than half of the participants reported having BP jobs. Almost all of them were receiving claims checks, but few felt that the claims amounts were sufficient to replace lost income. There was a wide disparity in the effect that BP jobs were having economically. Some fishermen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from constant participation in the Vessels of Opportunity program, while others are still waiting to be called up for work. Those with smaller boats and smaller incomes are faring the worst since the sliding scale of payouts effectively penalizes smaller fisheries businesses. Many thought that the Vessels of Opportunity program might end in one to three months, but there was a common perception that BP would continue to employ fishermen for clean-‐up indefinitely. News of the containment cap’s success in stopping the flow of oil did not seem to change fishermen’s perception that BP would continue operating the Vessels program. Almost no one has taken on other work, or has heard of anyone looking for new jobs. Fishermen who don’t have BP jobs generally have contracts with BP that they are hoping will give them a job in the future. The expectation of work derived from these contracts is preventing fishermen from looking for new or interim opportunities. B. Current skill sets Very few fishermen thought that they had any other skills than commercial fishing. Many fishermen said that they have construction skills like carpentry, but few felt that they were of the level or quality to be
Summary Recommendations – Perception • Since there is still so much uncertainty around the disaster, perceptions may change quite radically by the time programs are designed, funded, and implemented. Further focus groups or direct communication with fishermen should be maintained to make sure that proposed activities and outcomes match fishermen’s perceived needs.
• At this point, programs cannot be predicated on the notion that the fisheries will be shut down indefinitely. A more successful approach may be to frame programs (like skills training, etc.) as a hedge against catastrophic loss, and an activity for fishers to participate in while the ecosystem recovers.
Summary Recommendations – Current Employment • Since the financial lure of BP jobs is so compelling, near-‐term programs should somehow dovetail with the BP jobs process. Programs that are short in timeframe (i.e. one week certification programs, etc.) or located in local communities could give fishermen the flexibility to participate while waiting for BP work.
9
considered “skilled labor”. Fishermen in Pointe a la Hache felt that even if they have other skills, the lack of paperwork or a work history to verify those skills will bar them from seeking alternate employment. Passing tests to prove these skills were also considered a barrier. A fisherman in Lafitte described it like this:
“If you ain’t got a good education… you could be the best electrician they got, but if I can’t pass that test that they give me, they won’t let me go do electrical work… and that’s what’s hard … It’s not that I don’t know how to, it’s just that I’m not book smart. They use all these big words that I can’t figure out”
Current skills that were considered genuinely applicable to other industries included captaining boats, mechanics, and welding. The only industry that participants felt they could realistically use these skills in was the oil and gas industry. When asked, “What industries do you think you could realistically transition into?” most people felt that they could operate crew or supply boats for oilrigs. There is a close relationship between commercial fishermen and the oil industry with some fishermen reportedly working for the oil industry in the past. One fisherman in Chalmette had laid seismic sensors for several years while another had worked on the drilling rigs. However, between the already stiff competition for jobs and the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, few thought there would be any opportunities for fishermen in oil and gas. Captaining was found to be only slightly transferrable to other sea-‐based jobs. Operating a fishing boat is not necessarily the same as operating a tug boat, and fishermen would need to get trained and licensed to do so. One barrier to operating other boats is the required number of operating hours needed to get a new license (i.e. one license was reported to require 480 days of on-‐the-‐job operation). Although there was some disagreement on the details, several fishermen stated that a change in laws meant that hours spent captaining a fishing boat could no longer be applied toward licenses for other types and classes of boats. If this is true, it means that captains would essentially be treated as novices instead of seasoned veterans of the Gulf. C. Repurposing boats There was almost universal agreement that commercial fishing boats could not be repurposed for use in other industries. The idea of converting boats for carrying oil and gas crews or supplies was not considered viable. Licensing for other industries relies on specific boat types with different hulls than
Summary Recommendations – Current skills • A significant barrier to using current skill sets is the formalization of those skills. A technical assistance emphasis on better packaging and communication of these skills could increase the success of fishermen who transition out of the industry. Similarly, educating other industries on how to understand and utilize the skills of fishermen could create a similar effect.
• Stakeholders should consider influencing regulatory policy in this arena. Working to loosen restrictions around licensing or permitting could increase the number of opportunities for fishermen. Programs could be oriented around testing and proving those skills in non-‐traditional ways to meet regulatory thresholds.
• As it stands though, commercial fishermen do not have a lot of transferrable skills, and will likely need significant investments of training and resources in order to transition.
10
shrimp and oyster boats. Besides using the boats for charter fishing or pleasure cruises, there is not much else that they can do with the boats. Moreover, they see no opportunities in charter fishing or tourism anymore, so they would not invest into making those changes either. Another issue to consider was boat size and build. Small fiberglass and aluminum boats cannot be used too far offshore. A great deal of the fishing industry is composed of small-‐boat fishermen working the “inside” areas of the bays and bayous. If the primary industries utilizing boats are operating offshore, these smaller boats will have no use. If commercial fishing is no longer viable, these boats may truly be stranded assets. However, it is very important to point out that boats have a limited shelf-‐life. Unattended boats will die at the dock due to weather, tides, vandalism, or other reasons. Something must be done with them if fishing cannot be pursued. D. Retraining and pursuing new opportunities When asked about leaving the fisheries industry, one participant in New Orleans East said “That is the worst case scenario – changing your career”. No one was interested in leaving the fisheries industry. This was primarily due to the ambiguity of the scale of the oil spill, a personal reluctance toward leaving commercial fishing, and the feeling that fishermen can’t do anything else. Even when the declining state of the industry before the oil spill was discussed – including the rising cost of diesel and the reduced purchase price of product at the dock – participants still did not have any interest in leaving commercial fishing. Almost everyone felt that they were committed to fishing for life, and will only leave the industry if they are forced to. As such, it was difficult to effectively discuss transition opportunities or brainstorm around what type of long-‐term employment would be interesting to them. Conceptually, there was broad agreement that fishermen want to own their own businesses. No one was interested in having a boss. Also, most people agreed that working outside or in mechanical trades is more likely and interesting than conventional jobs in buildings. Many people want to remain on the water – it’s what they are used to, and what they like. Almost all fishermen agreed that they would need to pursue new opportunities that support a middle-‐class lifestyle. Wages would generally need to be high to be compelling to them. The notion of training itself was considered nearly impossible. Fishermen didn’t feel that they could endure “going to school”, and many felt that the lack of formal education or literacy would prevent them from learning anything new. Some also felt that they couldn’t afford the time or money for such education. The one trade that continually received some interest was welding. Individuals either wanted to learn how to weld, or wanted to use their own skills to start a welding business. Most people felt that there were a lot of job possibilities for welding. Also, several fishermen expressed interest in supplementing their skills with contractor training so they can pursue contracting opportunities. There was slight interest in truck driving or similar trades. Some Vietnamese-‐American fishermen expressed interest in driving big rig trucks, while some African-‐Americans thought driving dump-‐trucks sounded interesting. However, many participants felt that there were barriers to getting a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) due to required physicals. Many fishermen felt that they had sufficient medical problems barring them from getting licensed.
11
To a certain degree, the responses broke along ethnic lines. Latin-‐American dockhands were interested in any opportunities, including minimum wage jobs. African-‐American captains were interested in heavy machinery opportunities (like operating cranes, etc) and assumed that they could work for the parish until such opportunities arose. Cambodian-‐Americans had many ideas related to new businesses that they would start, including grocery stores, restaurants, liquor stores, and a donut shop. Caucasian fishers and seafood purveyors were generally resistant to pursuing new opportunities, but they encouraged support organizations to come up with ideas and bring them back for discussion. There were a few fishermen who had non-‐traditional skills they were interested in utilizing. One fisherman does catering, while another fisherman wants to open a butcher shop. One fisherman wants to cook Chinese food, while another one wants to care for porpoises and other sea life. A few people expressed interest in working for Wildlife and Fisheries or the Coast Guard. Fishermen in Pointe a la Hache discussed how they are all involved in some form of subsistence farming. While they currently only raise food for each other, there could be interesting entrepreneurial opportunities if they wanted to develop businesses from these skills. One other aspect worth mentioning is that there was considerable trepidation about finding jobs. Even with training, participants felt that companies are not hiring, or that fishermen would not know how to enter other industries. They also thought that new opportunities would necessarily put them on the “ground floor” and they would be unable to ever match their current income possibilities in commercial fishing.
E. Age of fishermen and its impact on perceived opportunities The age of fishermen was discussed frequently. Almost everyone felt that older fishermen were particularly vulnerable, especially due to age discrimination. Most people felt that even if you retrained a fisherman, no one would be willing to hire an “old man” for work.
Summary Recommendations – Retraining • Successful retraining programs should identify niche opportunities and provide deep support to small clusters of like-‐minded fishermen. Since there is little agreement on trades that fishermen could or would enter, it is not likely that broad programs focusing on only a few trades would create the same impact as smaller, targeted programs.
• Exceptions include skill building in welding or general contracting. Trainings for these could potentially be held with broad appeal, and sessions could be held around current BP work schedules.
• Tapping into the passions and non-‐traditional skills of commercial fishermen, no matter how fringe they may be, could encourage more people to participate.
• Any form of retraining or education should be subsidized. Tuition for classes and a daily stipend for living expenses could draw more participants and reduce attrition.
• An emphasis should be put on ‘on-‐the-‐job’ training over school-‐based training. • Linking “transformative” training directly to job placement programs will not only accomplish more in terms of outcomes, but will also create further incentives for fishermen to participate.
12
The most at-‐risk age bracket seemed to be late forties to early sixties. Respondents agreed that those fishermen were too old to retrain, but too young to retire. Older fishermen were concerned that since they were lifelong fishermen with no other marketable skills, they would be unable to retrain or find new work. Few older fishermen reported having significant retirement resources or savings. One participant in Chalmette explained the situation very succinctly: “Fishermen die on their boats; that’s their retirement.” One younger fisherman from Lafitte provided another age-‐related dilemma. He’s 30 years old, has a family, and has invested a significant amount of capital and time into his fishing boat. He felt that fishers in his situation were equally vulnerable because they have only begun to repay themselves for that investment. They have essentially worked to maximize their potential energy, but have had no opportunity to reap the kinetic benefits of working the industry.
F. Limited-‐English proficiency and citizenship issues One Vietnamese fisherman described the language barrier this way:
“When we communicate out here on the water, we use signal horns to signal port or starboard. We have ways of communicating without using language. But if you’re operating a crane or some heavy machinery, you have to know English, or someone could easily be killed. I speak pretty good English, so I’ll be ok. But for these guys who don’t speak any English, they’re going to have a hard time getting any skilled jobs even if they know how to do them.”
There was agreement in most limited-‐English sessions that language-‐requirements will be fundamental to successfully obtaining new skilled jobs. Some non-‐English speaking fishermen were interested in pursuing ESL classes for this reason, but most felt that (especially due to their age) they would not be able to learn any meaningful amount of English that could help their careers. Latino fishermen were more concerned about citizenship than language. Many of these fishermen described how as fishermen, their citizenship papers are not usually examined. Deckhands do not need commercial licenses. They are provided with 1099s at the end of the year, and they pay taxes on these wages using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN). ITIN numbers are issued directly by the IRS, and the applicant's immigration status is not verified nor is there an in-‐person meeting required. Many of these fishermen are paying into the system until immigration laws change and they can apply for formal legal status. Commercial fishing is one of the few opportunities where immigrants can work while learning the language and establishing residency. If this is no longer available to them, they are unsure of what they will be able to do.
Summary Recommendations – Age • Any program should have significant resources provided for retirement planning. The majority of fishermen interviewed need programs that take into account their age and the limiting factors of that age.
13
G. Relocation to pursue different opportunities Few fishermen thought that they would leave Louisiana. Many did not think they would leave their parish or local community, even if there were no jobs there. There is a deep feeling of rootedness and home here. One participant responded to the question saying “If I leave here, I not only have to adjust to a new career, but also a new place”. In commercial fishing, knowing the local waters is more important than anything else. Moving to a new location with seafood product does not guarantee any better chances for fishing if the fisherman doesn’t know the local area. A few indicated that if the payout was large enough, and they could no longer fish, they might move away from the coast and resettle elsewhere. But those who thought they might move tended to believe that they would be poor when doing so. One Chalmette participant said that she would “buy a piece of land and live like a hillbilly” if she couldn’t sell seafood anymore. A Vietnamese-‐American fisherman said he would leave and find the poorest town to live in because the cost of living would be cheaper. III. Oil Spill Response A. Possible claims packages
“We don’t really care to rely on other people. We don’t want no handouts” -‐ Lafitte Fisherman When discussing the possibility of payouts from BP, the government, or other entities, commercial fishermen didn’t seem to think that any sort of payout would be sufficient. From their experience with other disasters, there has never been enough resources to adequately support them. More importantly, there isn’t a price that they can put on their livelihood and lifestyle. The quality of their lives as fishermen is far more important than the income they derive from it (as evidenced by their dedication to the industry even in the face of a collapsing fisheries economy). When discussing financial compensation, numerous commercial fishermen said that responding entities should buy the businesses out, not just give grants. In terms of compensating lost income, participants were adamant that gross income should be used in lieu of net income. Especially when food, shelter, and wages are expensed through the business, there are many lost benefits that are not captured by a net income calculation. This is not an under-‐reporting issue – it is just an issue of income being paid before the bottom line is calculated for tax purposes. Fishermen were asked to think of a total claim amount that they would consider fair and beneficial. Every group responded with $1,000,000 dollars. One Vietnamese fishermen justified this number by
Summary Recommendations – Language and Citizenship • Besides providing ESL classes, some research should be put into what skilled labor exists that does not require high-‐proficiency in English. Multilingual trade schools should also be researched.
• Non-‐citizens were interested in pursuing formal legal status. Discussions with immigration non-‐profits or other agencies could assist in providing these clients with the right services.
14
saying that the top response on “Family Feud” for the question “How much money would allow someone to live comfortably?”, was one million dollars, which seemed reasonable to him if the rest of America felt that way. The primary concern by a few fishermen was that claims will be taxed. They felt that it was hard to think of how much money could help them when half of that money could be taken by the government. B. Debt forgiveness Potential debt forgiveness programs were considered interesting, but did not get general acceptance. The problem is that many fishermen don’t have debt. Even with flexible underwriting after Hurricane Katrina, many fishermen couldn’t get approved for loans. Of those that did have debt, the average amount seemed to be between $50,000 and $75,000. C. Boat buy-‐back programs Many fishermen suggested, of their own accord, that boat buy-‐backs should be a key component of a financial response. That’s not to say that they would actually sell their boats – but if they would have to exit the industry, most thought that selling their assets would be an important component. However, this didn’t work for a lot of fishermen. For those fishermen who have smaller skiffs or skimmers, their boats could be worth $35,000 or less. A boat buy-‐back does not have the same appeal to owners of smaller boats who would lose the same job or business as an owner of a larger boat, but who would not receive the same compensation as that other boat owner. There were also significant discussions around basing boat buy-‐back values on appraised value or replacement value. The appraised value for a given boat on the market may be between 100 and 200 thousand dollars, but the replacement value of those boats (i.e. to build from scratch again) could easily be in the half million-‐dollar range. Although leaving the industry permanently would undermine a justification for replacement value, some fishermen thought that it reflected all of the investments they’ve made into the boats that won’t get realized through an appraisal value. For example, one fisherman explained that he has had his boat for nine years, and it is currently appraised at $120,000. But he has been investing $25,000 into the boat for each of those nine years. Between the purchase price and the upgrades, the value of the boat to him is worth around $350,000 dollars or so. In order to reap the value of these investments, he needs to fish commercially for much longer than the nine years he has had the boat. So a buy-‐out program would need to cover the appraised value as well as some portion of the replacement value for him to consider a payout as “fair”. Another issue raised was what if a person has more than one boat? Will they all get bought out? One last bit of data regarding buy-‐backs was that following the closure of the gill net fishery, there was a net buy-‐back program to get the nets off the market. Fishermen at the Chalmette focus group felt that the program had been a failure because the buy-‐back price was $0.25 cents per foot of net. The fishermen said that many of them had thrown the nets away instead of getting such a small price for assets that were worth much more.
15
D. Fisheries subsidy programs and aquaculture As a part of the argument that the oil spill’s worst-‐case scenario may not happen, some fishermen were interested in receiving some assistance for staying in the water until the “middle-‐case” scenarios played out. If the ecology is only partially affected by the spill while the economy suffers more intensely, some fishermen thought that subsidies could be used to preserve commercial fishing until the situation blew over. These subsidies could include subsidizing the price of inputs by reducing the costs for diesel and ice, and by boosting dockside prices through subsidizing the purchase of seafood. Some fishermen feel it’s unfair that some industries in America like corn producers get numerous subsidies, while commercial fishermen are left to fend for themselves. Another interesting point was that this could be a great time to invest into aquaculture. The Lafitte focus group discussed the possibilities around land-‐based shrimp ponds or other facilities that could shift the harvesting of local species off of the Gulf waters. Although aquaculture is not a skill-‐set derived from marine fishing, it could be a middle ground where seafood continues to be harvested even if marine fishing collapses. E. Focusing on clean-‐up and coastal restoration An interesting theme that came up was to not look to the past for fisheries, nor to the future for skills transition, but to capture the present through clean-‐up and restoration. Some fishermen were worried that as “clean-‐up contractors” are brought in, local fishermen will lose out on clean-‐up jobs to out-‐of-‐state “professionals”. It was insulting to them because they feel that after the past five years, commercial fishermen are trained experts in a disaster recovery and clean-‐up jobs. Putting emphasis on recognizing and utilizing those skills was important to them. Similarly, there was an interest in utilizing captains and others in coastal restoration projects. Commercial fishermen know the coast better than most people, and have boats or other equipment that can be utilized in restoration projects. The pay for these activities could also be quite good, so some fishermen feel that they should be at the front of the line for these projects.
Summary Analysis and Recommendations After meeting with fishermen in different communities, from different backgrounds, and in different economic situations, several common themes were evident.
Summary Recommendations – Oil Spill Response • Programmatic responses will have to be sensitive to the content of financial claims. Certain claims components will allow fishermen to think outside of commercial fishing, while others will not. In any event, a comprehensive package may be necessary to move fishermen forward.
• Clean-‐up and coastal restoration could be a key area to apply political and financial investment. There may be a lot of room for innovation here and in the aquaculture approach.
• Programs that support commercial fishing will be just as important as programs transitioning from fishing – both on practical and psychological levels.
16
• The oil spill has yet to precipitate an urgency regarding the future. Fishermen will wait out the situation and try to find ways to return to their livelihoods when they can. Consequently, besides direct cash payouts, there is not currently a demand for social sector programs like workforce training or job placement services.
• Commercial fishermen have a range of informal skills, but the majority only have a background
in commercial fishing. Furthermore, most interviewees do not have interest in developing new, formal skills sets outside of fishing or related activities.
• There is some flexibility with fishermen when it comes to other “coastal” careers. Oil and gas
jobs, long-‐term marine clean-‐up, and coastal restoration created the most conversation with participants. The more aligned opportunities are with their boats or the coastline, the more commercial fishermen seem interested.
• Although on the group-‐level there was little interest in leaving commercial fishing, on the
individual level there were fishermen who had passion or skills outside of the fisheries (predominately in food service). Those with broader interests seemed interested in pursuing new entrepreneurial opportunities, but only if the future of commercial fishing precluded other income.
• Regardless of what happens with the oil spill, commercial fishermen face incredible barriers to
success outside of the fisheries industry. Age, education, language capacity, citizenship, physical health, lack of formal employment histories, and lack of savings or saleable assets will make it difficult to successfully find work or start new businesses outside of fishing.
• Claims will need to be nuanced and comprehensive for fishermen to find them fair, or to provide
them with the resources to adequately help them move on from commercial fishing if that becomes a necessity. The smaller the fisheries business (in terms of income and assets), the more likely they will need additional funds and services.
Following the interviews, our findings pointed toward a number of principles that should be applied to post-‐disaster programming related to the oil spill. These principles are intended to improve the success of programs, but are not necessarily “required” for program operations. 1) The first is that case management and personal/business formalization counseling should be at the
forefront of any initiative. What fishermen need more than anything is a way to see through the morass of challenges they face, and find ways to deal with significant barriers to their success. Effective technical assistance providing holistic services for fishermen will ensure that program outcomes are sustained beyond the completion of training courses or entrepreneurial trainings.
2) The second principle is that near-‐term programming should not necessarily be designed with broad,
transformative goals in mind. Programming should instead be focused on incremental, value-‐added opportunities that continue to support fishermen as fishermen, and make sense to them under the current perception of the situation. Courses in welding or contracting could improve skill sets for fishermen without pushing them towards exiting the industry.
3) The third is that programming for “transformative career transition” should be crafted for small
clusters of fishermen with a passionate interest in a topic. The majority will not participate in
17
programs aimed at exiting the fisheries, but some fishermen will if the programs are highly targeted to their interests. Clusters can be an appropriate scale for investing heavily into small groups who exhibit the most dedication to change.
4) The fourth principle is that the more a fisherman invests into new opportunities, the greater the
perceived benefit should be. This may seem obvious, but it is essential. Any program that is “transformative” in nature will need a very clear outcome to be successful. If a fisherman is going to turn his back on a lifestyle he has had for thirty years, he needs a guaranteed job at a good pay scale to be interested in the opportunity. Simply providing comprehensive training programs without jobs attached is not likely to incentivize participation.
In other words, finding interested employers or clients (for businesses) will be just as important as coming up with incubator programs that reflect fishermen’s career desires. Also, subsidies for participation will add to the perceived benefits that the program delivers.
5) The final take-‐away from the focus group data is that program design should look to the coast for new opportunities as much as it looks away. Commercial fishing may continue, and coastal clean-‐up and restoration will probably increase. Focusing on medium-‐term coastal job opportunities could pave a path for fishermen to return to commercial fishing when those projects are done, just as working in the oil and gas industry allowed fishermen to do the same in the past.
18
Appendix A: Focus Group Questionnaire GNO Inc. FishForward Focus Groups Location_________________ Date_____________________ # of Participants___________ Perception How “bad” is the oil spill? What do you think will happen to the commercial fishing industry because of the oil spill? How long do you think the fishing areas will be affected by the oil? When do you think LDWF will reopen the fisheries? To you, what is the worst case scenario? How prepared are you to deal with this scenario? If this gets worse, are you thinking of leaving Louisiana? Work and Skills How long do you think your BP job will last? What other kinds of jobs are fishermen finding right now besides BP jobs? If the fisheries don’t reopen after the BP jobs end, what will you do for work? What kind of skills do you have right now? What industries do you think you could realistically transition into? What else could you use your boat for?
19
Are there marine or other certifications you would want to get to be able to do other work? What are they? Response If you got a comprehensive package of money and services related to the spill, what would you think is fair and beneficial? How much of your debt is Katrina/Rita/Etc. disaster debt? ($ amount and %) If there was a boat buy-‐back program, would you participate? What do you think of an assistance package composed of cash, debt forgiveness, and a boat buy-‐back? What else can be done to help commercial fishermen?
