The process by which the assessment was conducted, and in turn its results, speak to fishermen's valid concerns for a serious need for greater transparency and cooperation in fisheries management.
NEW BEDFORD, Mass. (New Bedford Standard-Times) — October 2, 2014 — The Gulf of Maine cod fishery faces some big-ticket problems. Warming waters, concerns of overfishing, an economic disaster and stock assessment controversy all threaten this essential coastal industry. The common thread between these varied issues, however, is a troubling pattern of distrust. That pattern continues, unfortunately, with this latest assessment update of Gulf of Maine cod. The process by which the assessment was conducted, and in turn its results, speak to fishermen's valid concerns for a serious need for greater transparency and cooperation in fisheries management.
The National Marine Fisheries Service recently released a "Gulf of Maine Atlantic Cod 2014 Assessment Update Report," a report that is neither a full benchmark stock assessment nor an operational assessment, but a hybrid, trial assessment report. This controversial report seemingly arbitrarily used the exceptionally complex Gulf of Maine cod stock as its test subject. The result is an update that is not inclusive, not transparent, not timely, not in compliance with the peer review process and not trustworthy.
The unfortunate development of distrust goes back several years with a history of questionable stock assessments. Most recently, the 2011 assessment sparked outrage with its numerous technical problems and surrounding controversy, and the 2012 re-evaluation failed to address several key lingering issues. Recurring complications with the Gulf of Maine cod assessments have created a culture of distrust surrounding these assessments.
Now, the latest "streamlined" assessment update process has managed to revise the proper procedures and scientific analysis right out of the assessment, making a report that is unfit for actual use and another blemish on the reputation and legitimacy of these cod assessments. Gulf of Maine cod was not scheduled for review, and NMFS' provided reasons for the assessment are questionable. Whether or not there even was a reason for review, there is a mechanism in place to address concerns for more frequent stock assessments through the operational assessment update. Conducting more frequent updates is a useful initiative for all stakeholders in this industry, whether on the water or in the lab, but each assessment must be rigorously and correctly conducted without sacrificing science for speed.
In this case, sound science was sacrificed in an attempt to streamline the overall process. The very tenets of accredited scientific analysis, the scientific method and peer review, were slighted in this update. The required information to enter peer review, ranging from "Analytic Approach" to "Results" and "Discussion," elements we all know to be scientifically essential since our grade school science fair days, are not in the report.
When asked for his take on the 2014 update of Gulf of Maine cod, Dr. Steven Cadrin, a fisheries expert who participated in the SSC Peer Review, said, "the process did not comply with the general principals of the best scientific information available or the specific requirements of the Council's peer review process." The accelerated speed of the assessment process prevented the groundfish industry, which already faces numerous obstacles, from involving an outside consultant in the process. In 2005, the industry made considerable investments, even under hardship, to hire scientific consultants to ensure the transparency of these types of processes.
Another strange element of this assessment process: the Northeast Fisheries Science Center issued a press release that reported results from the updated assessment before the peer review was conducted. The press release, in short, reported the results before the review panel accepted them, thereby influencing the review process.
In addition to the problematic aspects of the assessment process, the assessment science has drawn fire as well. The models used in the data analysis have documented flaws. The cod stock, especially in light of changing ocean temperatures and ecosystems, is far more complex than standard models and grids illustrate. Scientific advancements in stock assessment technology have been developed, but were disregarded in this process. With these being only a few examples of the scientific problems surrounding this stock assessment, how can we trust this hybrid, hasty report?
After years of stock assessment issues and other burdens, the Gulf of Maine cod fishery deserves transparency in its management science. Writing of this exact need, President Obama has stated, "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions."
We desperately need to strengthen public confidence in the scientific information shaping our Gulf of Maine cod fishery and its management. If this new assessment type is a trial, then it should be regarded as an experiment rather than the final word. The repeated history of unreliable stock assessments must be ended and replaced with urgent action to restore accountability and trust in the crucial relationship between scientists, management bodies, and industry stakeholders in this fishery.
Richard Canastra is co-owner of BASE New England.
Editor's Note: Problems surrounding New England's iconic cod fishery are affecting coastal communities throughout the region, and gaining subsequent media attention as more details emerge. You can learn more about this issue at the following publications:
Read Richard Canastra's opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times
Read more at the Gloucester Daily Times
Read more at the Cape Cod Times
Read more at the Portland Press Herald