By Barry Darby and Helen Forsey
In view of the critical dilemma now facing the snow crab fishery with the threat of U.S. tariffs, here is a potential solution.
Those tariffs pose a risk that harvesting and processing might be severely disrupted, with serious impacts on all involved. But the price-setting problem is long standing, for crab and in other fisheries as well. Now, with our U.S. market uncertain, we need to think outside the box to deal with the issue, at least for this season.
Whatever happens, our most important goal must be to ensure that harvesting and processing will in fact occur and that all participants will be working. This is an economic imperative, as well as a social and biological one.
If no agreement could be reached in time for the harvest to happen, there would be no work or income for harvesters, processors or plant workers and the resulting economic and social disruption would reach far beyond those directly involved. Without a substantial and timely harvest this year, we would lose many of the markets that depend on us and gaining them back would be a major challenge.
Moreover, such a disruption of the 2025 harvest would have damaging ecological impacts on the future of the stock and thus on the fishery itself. If the crab we would catch this year is left in the water unharvested, we run the risk of that larger crab stock outgrowing the available food supply. The resulting increase in natural mortality, especially among the young, would lead to lower catches in the next year. What to do if the parties involved prove unable to come to an acceptable price-setting agreement before mid-March? We suggest that at that point, in order to minimize and share the risks from U.S. tariffs and other aspects of the current crisis, harvesters and processors should agree to the following for the 2025 crab season:
- No fixed crab price should be set. Instead, a competitive market — i.e. competition among buyers/processors — would determine the price a harvester would receive.
- Processors individually would choose what price they would offer the harvester.
- Harvesters would agree to go fishing. They would choose which buyer(s) they would sell their catch to.
- Processors, in turn, would guarantee their employees a minimum of 40 hours per week for the duration of the season, as long as there is a supply.
Of course, all this, like everything in the fishery, involves risks. But with this type of plan, both parties would share the risks threatened by the tariffs. Although financial details like the exchange rate may mitigate the problems to some degree, harvesters would risk perhaps receiving lower prices for their catch; processors would risk possible downward price trends in the markets they sell to.
The alternative — no crab fishery this season —would be much more risky for everyone. If we were to miss the 2025 harvest, the consequences at all levels would be too great to be contemplated.
The ecological impact of not harvesting this season’s crab would have negative financial effects for all concerned for years to come. We’ve already seen this with both redfish and cod.
In the past five years, there has been a decline of nearly 50 per cent in the Area 1 redfish stock due to DFO’s failure to allow a fishery and the resulting inadequacy of their food supply, notably shrimp.
Similarly, for the last eight years, our cod stock in 2J3KL has failed to increase because of insufficient capelin and our failure to harvest enough cod to allow adequate food for the ones that remain.
We need to ensure that this does not happen with crab. There would of course be I’s to be dotted and your T’s to be crossed for any actual agreement, but an agreement along the lines of the one outlined above — based on the principles of shared risk and fair competition — would ensure that the 2025 harvest would happen, providing work in both harvesting and processing, and benefitting the stock itself. Our markets could continue to count on a dependable supply, and prices might even improve at some point.
In short, the above plan would offer a realistic way of addressing the looming threat of U.S. tariffs and the overall uncertainty of the present situation, ensuring that the harvesting, processing and marketing of crab would proceed with minimal disruption. That in turn would help to ensure that future harvests are not negatively impacted.
Hopefully the FFAW-Unifor and the Association of Seafood Producers (ASP) will consider adopting this idea, at least for the 2025 season.
