A preliminary draft agenda for Monday's Northeast Fisheries Summit to be held in New Bedford, Massachusetts has been released.
NORTHEAST FISHERIES SUMMIT
Sponsored by the City of New Bedford,
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and
the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute
Monday, March 8, 2010
9:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
New Bedford Whaling Museum
The Northeast Fisheries Summit is intended to restore a foundation of trust between NOAA and the fishing community through a serious and thoughtful dialogue that sets a strategic path moving forward for the promulgation of sound fisheries management plans. The Summit is intended to articulate shared objectives of sustainability of fish stocks and economic vitality of fishing communities. The principles of equity and fairness, conservation, preservation of jobs and income, prevention of waste, and flexibility in management can only be realized through collaboration. To this end, we hope to build a more collaborative approach to management and a mutual commonsense interpretation of the laws that govern fisheries in the United States of America.
We are hopeful that the Summit serves to focus dialogue on the development of an Action Plan that will outline specifics on how we can rebuild and strengthen the partnership between NOAA and industry, achieve conservation, and preserve jobs and income.
In general, at the beginning of the Summit we will hear from elected and appointed officials. This will be followed by a roadmap of issues associated with conservation and harvesting of the fish stocks (we want to maintain continuity with Congressman Frank’s list of issues) and a description of the days agenda. We have selected three issues as examples: 1) catch shares and sectors, 2) scallop and scallop bycatch, and 3) amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act for panel discussions (about two hours each). We feel that focusing on these three examples will make concerns less abstract and reveal the issues associated with “the-devil-is-in-the-details” for panel discussions.
Each panel discussion will be initiated by a description of the key issues. A moderator will lead the discussion. The moderator will then call on each panel member to make a statement. The statement should identify and describe the issue from the speaker’s perspective. The statement should also identify solutions as perceived by the speaker. The audience will have an opportunity to provide their viewpoint on the descriptions of the problems and the potential solutions. We will work toward providing a summary of the discussions and interventions at the close of each panel. At the end of the day, Jimmy Ruhle will summarize “what he heard” and “what he didn’t hear.” A Summary will be prepared after the Summit. This Summary will be widely distributed.
ANNOTATED DRAFT AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Lang introduces Congressman Frank, Governor Patrick, NOAA Assistant Administrator Schwaab, and other elected and appointed officials. Officials will be given an opportunity to state their views.
PANEL DISCUSSION 1—CATCH SHARES AND SECTORS
a) Progress and Problems in Implementation. What progress are we making toward implementing sectors? What are the problems? How are the problems being resolved? Fishermen are indicating that there is a high probability that some of their sectors may not be economically viable. If some sectors are not economically viable, then what?
b) Available Fish—Constraints of Magnuson Versus Sectors. Fishermen say there are not enough fish to support sectors. Is this a problem that results from interpretation of the MSA, or is it a problem that results from sector implementation? Is there really a shortage of fish when underfishing and regulatory discards are seemingly commonplace? To what extent do stock assessments and attempts to be “precautionary” influence economic and conservation goals?
c) How do Catch Shares Resolve Problems that are Related to Days at Sea Regime? Many problems related to fishery management were attributed to the days at sea system. Some of these problems are- related to management infrastructure (e.g., data handling and transmission, shore sampling, etc.) Will these issues be resolved; and if not, to what extent will they constrain the effectiveness of the sector system?
d) Alternatives to Sector Management. Sectors seem to be coming more controversial. Are there other forms of management that might be better or more manageable than sectors?
e) Are There Options? Ideas have been forwarded regarding alternatives and acquiring more time to advance planning. Are any options feasible?
PANEL DISCUSSION 2—SCALLOP AND SCALLOP BYCATCH
a) Alternative Configurations of Closed Areas. Closed areas have been in effect for 15 years. Their utility is arguable. Is there some better way to formulate closed areas? What are the issues?
b) Bio-economic Plans for Scallop-Groundfish Interactions. The bycatch issue will be a significant constraint on scallop landings. Management of scallops and groundfish has been prosecuted along independent lines. It makes sense to manage the species jointly, taking account of both scallops and groundfish.
PANEL DISCUSSION 3—AMENDING THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT
An important feature of this panel involves the distinction between what can be implemented without amendment and what needs to be changed.
a) Generate Flexibility. A lack of flexibility in interpretation of the MSA is thought to result in suboptimal management decisions and hundreds of millions of dollars in waste each year.
b) Change Ten-year Rebuilding Timeframe. The ten-year timeframe is thought to be arbitrary and, as a consequence, it generates suboptimal management results. Timeframes need to be evidence-based and take into account ecological conditions.
c) Ensure SSCs Not Put Into Position of Making Socioeconomic Tradeoffs. The SSCs are directed to attach uncertainty to fishing levels. Because uncertainty is very difficult to estimate, the SSCs are put in the position of making socioeconomic tradeoffs that are ordinarily decided by council members.
d) Put Teeth Into “Best Available Science” Language. The criteria for best available science have been interpreted by the courts as “any science.” There needs to be a science ombudsman office. This can be implemented without legislative change.
e) Mixed Stocks. There will always be one stock that is the most “overfished.” As a result, all associated stocks are managed to this lowest denominator. Another approach is required.
f) Checks and Balances. There needs to be a mechanism for checks and balances and appeal in fishery management. An arrangement analogous to the FAA and the CAB could be a model.