Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic Approach
Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based
Programs (23-FEB-06, GAO-06-289).
Dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs are one tool the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses to help end
overfishing and promote conservation. Under a DAP program, NMFS
sets an allowable catch in a fishery and allocates the privilege
to harvest a portion of the total to eligible entities, such as
fishermen. Because DAP programs can have significant impacts on
fishermen and their communities, many believe that effective
participation by fishermen and other stakeholders in the
development of these programs is critical. GAO was asked to
determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery management
councils are using a framework for effective participation and
(2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest
for enhancing stakeholder participation in developing DAP
programs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-289
ACCNO: A47597
TITLE: Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic
Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing
Quota-Based Programs
DATE: 02/23/2006
SUBJECT: Fishes
Fishing industry
Marine resources conservation
Program evaluation
Program management
Strategic planning
Wildlife conservation
Policies and procedures
Stakeholder consultations
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-289
* Report to Congressional Requesters
* February 2006
* FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
* Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance
Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs
* Contents
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective
Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development
Process
* Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Do Not Fully
Adhere to Core Participation Principles
* Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Are Not Based on
a Strategic Approach
* Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of
Methods for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation
* Conclusions
* Recommendations for Executive Action
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
* Summary of Responses to GAO's Survey of Fishery Management Council
Members
* Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in the United
States
* Mid-Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog IFQ Program (1990)
* South Atlantic Wreckfish IFQ Program (1992)
* Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (1992)
* Alaskan Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program (1995)
* Whiting Conservation Cooperative (1997)
* Pollock Conservation Cooperative (1998)
* Pacific Sablefish Permit Stacking Program (2002)
* Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Allocation Program (2004)
* Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program
(2005)
* Comments from the Department of Commerce
* GAO Comments
* GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Requesters
February 2006
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder
Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs
Contents
Table
Figures
February 23, 2006Letter
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe Chairman The Honorable Maria Cantwell
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate
The Honorable John F. Kerry United States Senate
Overfishing is a problem with far-reaching environmental and economic
consequences. When a fishery-one or more stocks of fish within a
geographic area-cannot be sustained because of overfishing, the marine
ecosystem in which those stocks live can be harmed, and fishermen and
their communities can experience economic hardship. The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), a component of the Department of Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has several
management tools available to help end overfishing and promote
conservation, including dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs. Under a
DAP program, NMFS sets a total allowable catch in a particular fishery and
then allocates quota-the privilege to harvest a specified portion of the
total catch allowed for the fishery-to eligible entities, such as
fishermen, communities, and fishery cooperatives. DAP programs have
achieved several desired benefits, such as helping to stabilize fisheries.
However, these programs have also raised concerns about such issues as the
equity of quota allocation decisions. Moreover, because of the potential
for DAP programs to have significant impacts on fishermen, fishing
communities, and the environment, among other things, many believe that
effective participation by fishermen and other stakeholders in the
development of these programs is critical.1 Yet, some believe that
effective participation may not be occurring.
In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
established the process for managing marine fisheries in the United
States.2 Under the act, eight regional fishery management councils are
responsible for developing fishery management plans, including DAP
programs and other plans for managing fisheries in federal waters. The
councils are composed primarily of federal and state fishery management
officials and individuals selected by the Secretary of Commerce from lists
submitted by the governors of the states in the councils' regions. The
Secretary is required, to the extent practicable, to select council
members in such a way as to ensure a fair and balanced representation of
the active participants in the commercial and recreational fisheries under
the jurisdiction of the councils. Each council establishes advisory
committees to provide information and recommendations to the council on
the development of DAP programs and other fishery management plans,
amendments, and regulations.
To provide for stakeholder participation in developing fishery management
plans, such as DAP programs, each council must hold open meetings that are
widely publicized; make available council-generated information, such as
detailed minutes of council and committee meetings; and allow interested
individuals and groups to provide oral or written comments regarding
agenda items. Once a council prepares a DAP plan and drafts regulations to
implement the plan, the council submits the plan and regulations to the
Secretary of Commerce for approval. The Secretary reviews the plan and
proposed regulations for consistency with national standards and
applicable law, and immediately publishes notice of the plan's
availability for comment. The Secretary also publishes the regulations for
public comment after reviewing them for consistency with the plan and
applicable law. Once the comment period closes, the Secretary may then
approve the plan and promulgate final regulations, disapprove the plan, or
partially approve the plan; recommended changes are provided to the
council if the plan is not approved. Both NMFS and the councils have
responsibility for implementing and monitoring approved DAP programs and
proposing any changes. According to participation experts, effective
stakeholder participation may require agencies to go beyond the legal
requirements for formalized participation and use a more open, responsive,
informal, and collaborative approach to participation. Based on our review
of the literature and the experience of leading federal agencies in
stakeholder participation, adopting a participation framework is an
effective way to guide the development and implementation of this type of
approach. Such a framework includes core principles that provide a
foundation for an agency's stakeholder participation efforts and a
strategic approach to implementing them.
This is the fourth in a series of requested reports on individual fishing
quota (IFQ) and other DAP programs. In December 2002, we reported on the
extent of consolidation of quota holdings, the extent of foreign holdings
of quota, and the economic effect of IFQ programs on seafood processors.3
In February 2004, we reported on methods available for protecting the
economic viability of fishing communities and facilitating new entry into
IFQ fisheries, key issues facing fishery managers in protecting
communities and facilitating new entry, and the comparative advantages and
disadvantages of the IFQ system and the fishery cooperative approach.4 In
March 2005, we reported on the costs of managing IFQ programs and how
these costs differ from pre-IFQ management costs, the IFQ management costs
being recovered by NMFS, and ways to share the costs of IFQ programs
between government and industry.5 For this report, you asked us to
determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery management councils
are using a framework for effective stakeholder participation and (2) the
methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest for enhancing
stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs.
To conduct this review, we reviewed the activities and attended meetings
of four regional fishery management councils: the Gulf of Mexico, New
England, North Pacific, and Pacific councils. We selected these councils
to obtain broad geographic coverage of councils where DAP programs were
being developed. At the council meetings and elsewhere, we interviewed DAP
program stakeholders, including commercial vessel owners, captains, and
crew; recreational fishermen; fish dealers and processors;
environmentalists; fishing community representatives; and state and
federal fishery managers. In addition, we surveyed the members of the four
fishery management councils whose meetings we attended to obtain their
views regarding stakeholder participation, including both obstacles and
potential methods for enhancing participation. We also interviewed
participation experts and federal agency officials on public participation
theory and practice. See appendix I for additional details on our scope
and methodology and appendix II for the fishery management council survey
results. We conducted our review from March through November 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
The regional fishery management councils we reviewed lack key elements of
a framework for ensuring effective stakeholder participation in the
development of DAP programs. Specifically, council practices do not fully
adhere to the core principles we identified for effective stakeholder
participation, nor are they based on a strategic approach. Our review of
the participation literature and policies from leading federal agencies in
stakeholder participation identified seven core principles for effective
stakeholder participation. Examples of such principles include making key
information readily available and understandable, and fostering responsive
interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers.
Fisheries stakeholders with whom we spoke identified several areas where
current council practices do not fully adhere to these core principles.
For example, while the councils make information on DAP program
development available to stakeholders, this complex and technical
information is not always presented to stakeholders in an easily
understandable way. Also, while stakeholders can testify at council
meetings, according to participation experts, this one-way communication
is not an effective way to share information because it does not lead to a
dialogue between stakeholders and decision makers. In addition, according
to participation experts, effectively implementing these core principles
requires a strategic approach through which all key stakeholders are
identified, specific participation goals are defined, and participation
plans are created. While not legally required to do so, NMFS has neither
developed a formal stakeholder participation policy that includes a set of
core principles, nor provided the councils with guidance or training on
how to use a strategic approach to improve stakeholder participation.
Because the councils are not using a strategic approach, they may be
missing opportunities to enhance stakeholder participation in the DAP
program development process.
Stakeholders and participation experts suggested a number of possible
methods that, depending on the situation, could enhance stakeholder
participation in the DAP program development process and they generally
fall into five categories. First, according to stakeholders and
participation experts, the councils could provide more education and
outreach by implementing formal training programs on fishery management
and science, conducting outreach activities in locations likely to be
affected by DAP programs, and making DAP program documents more easily
understandable to non-experts. Second, councils could hold meetings in
different ways by using different times and locations that might be more
convenient for some stakeholders, broadcasting meetings to reach those who
cannot attend meetings in person, and using facilitators to run meetings.
Third, NMFS could streamline the often costly and lengthy DAP program
development process by adopting administrative procedures that integrate
the multiple statutory requirements that govern the process, and the
Congress could incorporate elements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) into the Magnuson-Stevens Act and then exempt the act from
NEPA. Fourth, the Congress could diversify the interests represented in
the DAP program development process by diversifying representation on the
councils, and NMFS and the councils could help ensure that stakeholders
have organized representation so they can participate more effectively.
Finally, stakeholders said the councils could share decision-making
authority by putting DAP proposals to a vote in a referendum and
participation experts suggested using collaborative or consensus-based
decision making that allows stakeholders to fully explore issues together.
While employing these methods can result in more effective participation,
particularly when they are used as part of a participation plan, these
methods can also have disadvantages, such as increased costs.
To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs,
we are recommending that NMFS (1) establish a formal policy for
stakeholder participation, including adopting a set of core principles;
(2) provide guidance and training on developing and using a strategic
approach to stakeholder participation; and (3) ensure that the councils
develop and implement a framework for stakeholder participation that
includes core principles and a strategic approach.
In commenting on a draft of this report, NOAA said the agency acknowledged
that more could be done to improve stakeholder participation and agreed
with our recommendations. NMFS agreed to form a working group to develop a
stakeholder participation policy, including core principles, to guide
stakeholder participation activities. NMFS also agreed to provide training
to the councils and others on the stakeholder participation policy.
Finally, NMFS agreed to work with council members and staff to implement a
participation framework that includes jointly-developed core principles.
NOAA's comments appear in appendix IV.
Background
Public participation in federal agency decision making has evolved over
the past 60 years. The Administrative Procedure Act, enacted in 1946,
created a legal basis for public participation by requiring agencies to
hold public comment periods for proposed rules. In 1969, the enactment of
NEPA provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the
environmental impacts of certain proposed federal actions. NEPA requires
federal agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement for
any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, as well as an analysis of alternatives to the proposed
action. The agency must take this information to the public and provide
opportunities for the public to comment before a decision is reached. In
1993, Executive Order 12866 was issued to reform the regulatory process
by, among other things, making the process more accessible and open to the
public. Specifically, the order directs federal agencies to seek the
involvement of those who are intended to benefit from and those expected
to be burdened by any regulation before issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking, and to give the public an opportunity to comment on any
proposed regulation.
In 1976 the Magnuson-Stevens Act institutionalized regional decision
making in which stakeholders play a key role. Specifically, the act
established eight regional councils responsible for developing DAP and
other fishery management plans: the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Pacific, North Pacific, and Western
Pacific councils. One of the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to
ensure that the councils prepare, monitor, and revise these plans under
circumstances that will enable the states, the fishing industry, consumer
and environmental organizations, and other interested parties to
participate in and advise on the establishment and administration of the
plans. To this end, the act provides many opportunities for stakeholder
participation in developing fishery management plans. Stakeholders can
attend open meetings, provide oral and written comments regarding DAP
issues before the council, and serve (or be represented) on the councils
or advisory committees that make recommendations to the councils. Programs
developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act must also meet the requirements
of the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, and other laws governing
fisheries management. NMFS prepares operational guidelines to assist the
councils in developing practices and procedures, consistent with these
laws, for developing, reviewing, and implementing fishery management
plans.
There are several different types of DAPs:
o IFQs allow eligible entities, such as vessel owners or fishermen, to
catch a specified portion of the total catch allowed. When the assigned
portions can be sold or transferred, they are called individual
transferable quotas.
o Community quotas grant a specified portion of the total catch allowed to
a community. The community then decides how to allocate the catch.6
o Fishing cooperatives divide all or part of the available quota among
fishing and/or processing entities by means of contractual agreements.
o Area-based quotas give an individual or group dedicated access to the
fish within a specific area of the ocean.
At the time of our review, NMFS had implemented nine DAP programs for
fisheries under the management authority of the regional councils: the
Mid-Atlantic surfclam/ocean quahog IFQ program in 1990, the South Atlantic
wreckfish (snapper-grouper complex) IFQ program in 1992, the Western
Alaska Community Development Quota Program in 1992, the Alaskan halibut
and sablefish (black cod) IFQ program in 1995, the Whiting Conservation
Cooperative in 1997, the Bering Sea pollock cooperative authorized by the
American Fisheries Act in 1998, the Pacific sablefish permit stacking
program in 2002, the Georges Bank cod hook sector allocation program in
2004, and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program
authorized by Congress in 2004. See appendix III for descriptions of these
programs. In addition, NMFS had implemented a tenth DAP program for the
Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seine fishery, which the Secretary of Commerce
established and now manages. Finally, at the time of our review, DAP
programs were being developed for the following fisheries: Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish (trawl catcher-processor), Gulf of
Alaska groundfish, Gulf of Alaska rockfish, Gulf of Mexico red snapper,
Mid-Atlantic tilefish, Georges Bank cod (gillnet), and Pacific groundfish
(trawl).
Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective
Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development Process
An effective stakeholder participation framework encompasses a set of core
principles and a strategic implementation approach. However, the current
practices of the fishery management councils we reviewed do not fully
reflect such core principles or include an implementation strategy. While
the DAP program development process provides many opportunities for
stakeholder participation, stakeholders identified several areas where the
councils have not addressed obstacles to participation faced by some
stakeholders, particularly crew members.
Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Do Not Fully Adhere to Core
Participation Principles
Our review of the participation literature and policies from leading
federal agencies in stakeholder participation identified the following
core principles for effective stakeholder participation, some of which may
overlap when put into practice:
o using an open and clearly defined decision-making process;
o making key information readily available and understandable;
o actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input;
o involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process;
o fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders and
decision makers;
o using formal and informal participation methods; and
o including all stakeholder interests.
While the DAP program development process used by the fishery management
councils provides many opportunities for stakeholder participation,
stakeholders with whom we spoke and council members who responded to our
survey identified several areas where current practices do not fully
adhere to the core principles for effective participation.
o Using an open and clearly defined decision-making process. Adhering to
this principle means that an organization makes program development
processes open and accessible to all interested stakeholders, and that the
organization has informed stakeholders about what roles they can play and
how the organization uses stakeholder input, such as oral statements
provided at council meetings, in decision making. Using a transparent
process gives stakeholders clear expectations about how decisions will be
made, enhancing understanding and trust in the organization's decisions.
While the councils we reviewed use an open decision-making process and
inform stakeholders how they can participate, they do not always make
clear how they use stakeholder input in decision making. Specifically, the
councils hold open meetings where any stakeholder can provide oral or
written statements on DAP agenda items. Also, each council has prepared a
Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures that provides
information on council operations and how stakeholders can participate in
developing fishery management plans, such as DAP programs. Further, the
councils we reviewed make information available at council meetings on how
to participate. In addition, the Pacific Council has prepared a guide on
how to get involved in the council process, which is available on its Web
site, as well as at council meetings. Nonetheless, stakeholders told us
that it takes time to understand the process. As a result, some
stakeholders, particularly those who are new to the process or who are not
members of a stakeholder organization, do not understand which meetings to
attend and the appropriate times to submit information on DAP proposals.
Finally, while all council members who responded to our survey said that
they use stakeholder input in making decisions, they do not always provide
explanations of how stakeholder input was used. For example, stakeholders
told us that when a council votes immediately after public comment, it is
not always clear that their input was considered, particularly when the
council's decision does not reflect the views expressed in public comment.
In addition, council meeting minutes do not always address issues raised
by stakeholders or explain how their input was used in making decisions.
o Making key information readily available and understandable. This core
principle helps ensure that stakeholders have access to information, such
as analyses of DAP proposals, and that the information is understandable
to them so that they can participate in a meaningful way during the
program development process. While all the councils we reviewed make key
information on DAP program development readily available to stakeholders,
this technical information is not always presented in an easily
understandable way. Specifically, the councils make program documents,
such as draft DAP planning documents and analyses, available on their Web
sites and at council meetings. The councils also send these documents to
those who request them. However, stakeholders told us that the documents
often use technical language to present complex issues, making them
difficult to understand. Stakeholders also told us that documents can be
lengthy and repetitive, making them time-consuming to read. For example,
the environmental impact statement for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
crab rationalization program, required under NEPA, was more than 2,300
pages long.7 When key information is difficult to understand and
time-consuming to read, some stakeholders said that they have difficulty
becoming knowledgeable about the issues, which, according to participation
experts, can limit stakeholders' ability to participate in a meaningful
way.
o Actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input. Adhering
to this principle means that decision makers seek out those potentially
affected by a decision and request input, paying particular attention to
stakeholder groups that have traditionally been less involved. The
councils we reviewed conduct some outreach and solicit stakeholder input.
For example, the councils we reviewed place notices in the Federal
Register and distribute notices to the media to announce public meetings
as required by law, maintain mailing lists of people interested in
receiving council-generated information, prepare and distribute
newsletters to people on their mailing lists, and send representatives to
fishing conferences, expositions, and forums. In addition to conducting
outreach, the councils also solicit stakeholder input on the potential
effects of specific DAP program alternatives by holding meetings at
various locations where stakeholders can submit oral and written
statements. However, at the four councils we reviewed, we found only
limited efforts by the councils to provide targeted outreach to, or seek
input from, stakeholders who do not typically participate in the council
process, such as crew members. This may explain, in part, why stakeholders
told us that some stakeholders, such as crew members and others who may be
affected by DAP decisions, do not participate or participate too late in
the process to provide meaningful input. Over 60 percent of the council
members who responded to our survey believe that expanding public outreach
activities would be effective in improving stakeholder participation in
developing DAP programs. Some council members noted, however, that
stakeholders also have a responsibility to seek out information about DAP
issues and use the available opportunities to participate in the
development process.
o Involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process.
According to participation experts and our prior work, involving
stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process can help
ensure that stakeholders provide input early enough for the input to be
useful and often enough so that stakeholders are involved in the smaller
decisions that lead to a final decision.8 Although the councils follow the
stakeholder participation requirements provided by law, the length of the
DAP program development process and the costs of attending meetings make
it difficult for some stakeholders to be involved early and throughout the
process. Specifically, stakeholders can participate in the process by
providing oral and written input to the council and its advisory
committees on DAP agenda items at public hearings and meetings, and by
serving on the council or advisory committees that make recommendations to
the council. However, many stakeholders told us that the length of the
process, which can take several years, was a significant obstacle to
participation. In addition to the length of the process, the costs
associated with travel and time away from work make it difficult for some
stakeholders to attend meetings and stay involved. Stakeholders told us
that this situation is particularly problematic for those who are not
members of organizations or do not have representatives to attend
meetings, gather information, and provide input on their behalf.
o Fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders and
decision makers. This core principle promotes understanding between
stakeholders and decision makers. While the councils communicate with
stakeholders, they do not always do so in a responsive, interactive way.
Stakeholders can provide input to the councils by testifying at council
meetings (see fig. 1) and by submitting written comments. At the councils
we visited, testimony is given at designated times during the council
meetings, with one speaker following another. Council members may ask
clarifying questions at the completion of each statement, but they do not
always do so. According to participation experts, serial testimony is not
an effective way to communicate, because it does not lead to a dialogue
between stakeholders and decision makers. Further, some stakeholders told
us that they find it intimidating to deliver public testimony before the
council, which may require speaking before as many as 21 council members
and 200 people in the audience.
Figure 1: Public Testimony before the Pacific Fishery Management Council
In addition, stakeholders told us that when they submit written comments,
which become part of the official record, councils do not consistently
respond to these comments. When a council does not respond to oral or
written comments, it loses an opportunity to foster interactive
communication and stakeholders question how their input was used.
o Using formal and informal participation methods. Formal information
exchanges-such as written council responses to stakeholder input on
proposed DAP plans-help ensure that information (e.g. the rationale for
DAP decisions) is available to all, regardless of one's ability to attend
meetings. Informal methods, such as open houses where agency officials can
share information and hear stakeholder concerns, can give stakeholders and
decision makers the opportunity to interact and share views on DAP issues.
While the councils we reviewed provide stakeholders with formal
opportunities to participate in developing DAP programs, they offer few
informal opportunities that are open to all stakeholders. Specifically,
while all stakeholders can formally participate in developing DAP programs
by attending meetings and submitting oral and written comments, according
to participation experts, these formal participation methods are not
always conducive to interactive communication between stakeholders and
decision makers. Moreover, stakeholders told us that they would like more
opportunities for informal interactions. All four of the councils we
reviewed provide contact information for council members and staff on
their Web sites, and stakeholders told us that council staff are available
and helpful to people who contact them. However, our review of council
practices showed that the councils provide few organized opportunities for
all stakeholders to informally discuss issues.
o Including all stakeholder interests. Including all stakeholder interests
helps ensure that all viewpoints are considered in developing DAP programs
and is crucial to perceptions of fairness. One of the purposes of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act is to ensure that councils prepare plans in ways that
enable stakeholders to participate, but some stakeholder groups may not be
adequately represented. For example, 60 percent of the council members who
responded to our survey believed that crew members were poorly represented
or not represented at all in the DAP program development process. Further,
while stakeholders serve on the council or on advisory committees that
make recommendations regarding DAP proposals to the council, some
stakeholders are concerned that not all stakeholder interests are
adequately represented on the councils and their advisory committees.
Regarding representation on the councils, the Secretary of Commerce is
required to select council members in such a way as to ensure a fair and
balanced representation of the active participants in the commercial and
recreational fisheries under the council's jurisdiction. However, among
the commercial representatives on the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
there are no active commercial fishermen; similarly, there are no active
crew members on the four councils we reviewed. Moreover, the Secretary is
not required to balance any other stakeholder interests, such as
environmentalist or consumer interests, and many stakeholders (including
some council members we surveyed) believe that the councils are not
representative of all interests. In addition, some stakeholders told us
that they believe the composition of the advisory committees, whose
members are selected by the councils, is not always adequately
representative. Finally, when stakeholders bypass the council process to
get a DAP program approved, all interests may not be included. For
example, in some cases, stakeholders have taken DAP proposals directly to
the Congress for legislative approval rather than using the council
process.9 While some stakeholders expressed concern that involving more
people will increase the amount of time and effort needed to make
decisions, others noted that including all stakeholders' interests can
help agencies avoid controversy once decisions are made.
Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Are Not Based on a Strategic
Approach
According to participation experts and government officials, using a
strategic approach to participation that is based on core principles is
the second key element of an effective participation framework. Although
the specifics of a strategic approach to stakeholder participation should
be tailored to each situation, it should generally include identifying all
key stakeholders, defining specific participation goals, creating a
participation plan, implementing the plan, evaluating the results, and
making adjustments as necessary. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Steps in Using a Strategic Approach to Stakeholder Participation
Identifying stakeholders involves systematically considering which
internal and external parties may be affected by or interested in a
decision. In the case of DAP decisions, for example, stakeholders may
include a wide range of interests, such as vessel owners, captains, and
crew members; processors; fishing-dependent communities; recreational
fishermen; environmentalists; federal and state fishery managers;
consumers; and members of the public. Once managers identify stakeholders,
they should then define specific goals for involving those stakeholders,
such as having stakeholders help design a solution to a particular problem
or gaining their support for agency decisions. The next step-creating a
participation plan-outlines the methods managers will use to involve
stakeholders. Once a plan is implemented, evaluating the results can help
agencies determine what is working-and what is not-and make adjustments as
necessary to improve participation. To increase the chances of success,
participation experts suggest that managers involve stakeholders in these
participation planning, execution, and evaluation efforts.
Adhering to a set of core principles and using a strategic implementation
approach can enhance participation, which can benefit agencies and
stakeholders by increasing stakeholders' perceptions of fairness, helping
diffuse potentially controversial issues, minimizing overall costs and
delays in developing programs, and generally developing better decisions.
However, if participation efforts are not executed well, they can
undermine stakeholders' trust in the process and decrease the credibility
of decisions. To minimize this risk, participation experts told us that
agency commitment is key. This commitment can be exemplified by adopting a
formal stakeholder participation policy that expresses core principles,
and providing guidance and training on how to develop and use a strategic
approach to stakeholder participation. Such policies, guidance, and
training can help managers better understand what is expected of them
regarding stakeholder participation and help them strategically plan and
execute participation efforts.
NMFS is not legally required to develop a formal policy on stakeholder
participation or provide the councils with guidance and training on how to
develop and implement a participation framework, and it has not done so.
Moreover, the councils themselves have not developed strategic approaches
that define their specific participation goals or include participation
plans, and therefore may be missing opportunities to make stakeholder
participation in the DAP process more effective. However, without NMFS's
leadership and commitment, it may be difficult for the councils to enhance
stakeholder participation in developing DAP programs.
Two federal government agencies-the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of Energy (DOE)-are recognized by participation experts
as leaders in establishing effective stakeholder participation frameworks.
Both agencies have (1) established policies that define their core
participation principles, such as fostering openness between the agencies
and their stakeholders, and (2) provided guidance to program managers on
using a strategic approach to stakeholder participation. EPA's public
involvement policy articulates participation principles, such as ensuring
that the public has timely, accessible, and accurate information about EPA
programs so that stakeholders have the knowledge they need to participate.
For example, EPA provides information on its Web site for planning and
conducting public involvement activities. EPA also provides a
participation strategy that directs agency officials to take specific
steps, such as planning and budgeting for public involvement activities,
systematically identifying stakeholders, and evaluating public
participation activities. Further, EPA provides guidance, training, and
resources to implement its policy. Similarly, DOE has established
participation principles, such as using open, ongoing, formal and informal
two-way communication between DOE and its stakeholders, and provides
guidance to managers on how to plan and implement effective participation
efforts. DOE also publishes evaluations of past efforts, which managers
can learn from as they devise strategies appropriate for their specific
situation.
Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of Methods for
Enhancing Stakeholder Participation
According to stakeholders and participation experts, a variety of methods
are available that, depending on the situation, could enhance stakeholder
participation in developing DAP programs. These methods generally fall
into five categories: (1) providing education and outreach, (2) holding
meetings in different ways, (3) streamlining the DAP program development
process, (4) diversifying interests represented in the council process,
and (5) sharing decision-making authority. While strategic use of these
methods can result in more effective participation, they can also have
disadvantages, such as increased costs.
Providing education and outreach. Stakeholders and participation experts
suggested several ways to conduct education and outreach activities that
encourage stakeholders to participate in the DAP program development
process and help give stakeholders the substantive and procedural
information they need to participate effectively. These approaches include
implementing formal training programs, conducting outreach activities in
locations likely to be affected by DAP programs, expanding council mailing
lists to include more stakeholders, making DAP program documents more
easily understandable to non-experts, and making greater use of
technology.
o Implement formal training programs. Stakeholders said that they would
like more training on fishery management and science. NMFS currently
offers two days of training to new council members on the fishery
management process and hopes to expand its efforts by providing ongoing
training on other fishery management issues. Stakeholders identified the
Marine Resource Education Project (MREP), which is sponsored by a group of
universities in New England, as an example of a good training program.
MREP provides stakeholders with intensive training on fisheries management
and science to help them better understand the council process and DAP
issues, teaches the importance of being involved early and throughout the
process, and provides diverse stakeholders with the opportunity to
exchange information in informal settings. However, such training can be
costly and may reach relatively few stakeholders.
o Conduct outreach activities in locations likely to be affected by DAP
programs. Stakeholders said that they would like council members or staff
to meet with them in their communities, such as port towns or communities
likely to be affected by DAP programs, instead of making participants
travel to council meetings. While this method could increase stakeholder
understanding of complex issues (such as DAP programs), bring more
stakeholders into the process, and foster interactive communication
between stakeholders and decision makers, it may also require a high level
of council resources.
o Expand council mailing lists to include more stakeholders. Councils
could proactively expand their mailing lists, which currently are largely
composed of stakeholders who have attended meetings or who have contacted
the council and requested that their name be added. For example, when
people apply for fishing permits, permitting agencies could request to add
their contact information to the appropriate council mailing list. While
this method would make council-generated information, including
information on DAP program development, available to more stakeholders,
councils may still have difficulty obtaining contact information for some
stakeholders.
o Make DAP program documents more understandable. Stakeholders suggested
that councils simplify their documents or provide additional documents for
those with less technical backgrounds. One way to simplify documents is to
make them shorter. For example, the regulations governing the creation of
environmental impact statements state that the text of even unusually
complex documents should normally be less than 300 pages. NMFS has
recently issued draft guidelines that encourage councils to create clear
and concise documentation that stakeholders can easily understand.
Additionally, councils could create short summary documents that explain
key issues in plain language. For example, the Pacific Council issues
short fact sheets on a variety of fishery management issues. Simplifying
documents would make information easier to understand; however, it could
require additional council resources.
o Make greater use of technology. Stakeholders have suggested making
greater use of technology, such as e-mail and Web sites, in providing
education and outreach on DAP issues. For example, EPA's Web site for
hazardous waste cleanup activities offers easy access to a range of
material, from introductory information explaining key issues to
non-experts, to technical information for people with high levels of
expertise. Participation experts say that using such technology can
enhance communication of important information, give stakeholders a more
immediate sense of connection to the process, and reach more people at a
lower cost. However, some stakeholders may not use or have access to the
technology being used.
Holding meetings in different ways. To increase meeting attendance and
allow for more informal, deliberative interaction, stakeholders suggested
holding meetings at different times or locations, broadcasting meetings,
holding informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues, and using
facilitators to run meetings.
o Hold meetings at different times or locations. Some stakeholders
requested that council meetings take place at more convenient times or in
locations that were easier to reach. For example, one advisory committee
member in the Gulf Council said that the committee successfully increased
attendance by scheduling meetings in ports at times convenient to
fishermen. While holding meetings at different times or places would allow
for additional input from those who might not otherwise be able to attend,
it may increase convenience for only some stakeholders, while
inconveniencing others.
o Broadcast meetings. Stakeholders and experts said that broadcasting
meetings using technology, such as the telephone, television, or the
Internet, could be one way to increase meeting attendance. For example,
during public hearings on developing the halibut and sablefish IFQ
program, the North Pacific Council used conference calls to broadcast
meetings, giving stakeholders in remote locations the opportunity to learn
about and provide input on IFQ program options. While broadcasting
meetings could increase meeting attendance, it may not entirely replace
the value of direct contact through face-to-face meetings.
o Hold informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues. Stakeholders
with whom we spoke requested opportunities for informal discussions.
Participation experts noted that this type of communication is often key
to ensuring stakeholder satisfaction with involvement efforts, because
such interactions can help break down barriers between people and allow
stakeholders to learn from one another. There are several options for
conducting such discussions. For example, in 2003, NMFS held eight
regional "constituent sessions" to gather the views of marine resources
stakeholders on issues facing each region's fisheries. While these
sessions were not directly related to DAP program development, NMFS
officials said that they were valuable because they provided the agency
with a general sense of stakeholders' concerns. Another option is to
sponsor informal interactions, such as roundtable meetings, where agency
officials and stakeholders can meet and talk about issues of interest. A
DOE official said that seating officials among stakeholders in a
roundtable setting has helped her agency break down barriers between these
two groups. Further, the Pacific Council's state representatives hold open
and informal meetings with their constituents on days when the council is
in session. Through these meetings, council members make information
readily available to stakeholders and foster responsive, interactive
communication. One disadvantage of these meetings, though, is that they
are accessible only to people who are able to attend the council meeting.
o Use facilitators to run meetings. Participation experts and some
stakeholders suggested using neutral facilitators to run meetings.
According to participation experts, neutral facilitators can ensure that
issues are thoroughly explored and increase perceptions of fairness. For
example, EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council published a
model plan for public participation in which providing a skilled
facilitator is a critical element. However, hiring a facilitator may
require additional expense.
Streamlining the DAP program development process. Many laws govern the
fishery management process. Yet, according to stakeholders, how these laws
are applied often results in a costly and lengthy fishery management
process. To decrease the time and effort required to develop DAP programs
and other fishery management plans, NMFS has proposed adopting
administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process, and some
stakeholders have suggested amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
incorporate elements of NEPA and then exempt the Magnuson-Stevens Act from
NEPA.
o Adopt administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process.
Stakeholders have suggested that NMFS streamline the process for
developing fishery management plans, such as DAP programs. This effort is
underway. NMFS issued revised draft guidelines in August 2005 for
developing fishery management plans that, among other things, integrate
the many statutory requirements, such as NEPA, that govern fisheries
management. NMFS expects that these new guidelines will increase the
quality of their decisions, improve their ability to successfully defend
lawsuits, and decrease the overall time and effort required to create a
fishery management plan, such as a DAP program. However, officials
recognize that the new process will create additional work for councils in
the early stages of plan development.
o Amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to incorporate NEPA requirements. Some
stakeholders have suggested that the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to
include elements of NEPA and then exempt the Magnuson-Stevens Act from
NEPA. While we recognize that the councils do not have the authority to
make these decisions, some stakeholders believe that this option would
remove duplicative effort and decrease the time needed to develop DAP
programs. However, others say that NEPA requirements can benefit the
decision-making process by providing key analyses and participation
opportunities not required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as the
requirements to use an early and open process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed and to assess different DAP program options before
making a decision.
Diversifying interests represented in the council process. Stakeholders
and participation experts suggested two methods for more fully including
all interests in the DAP program development process: diversifying
interests represented on the councils and their advisory committees, and
helping ensure that stakeholders have organized representation.
o Diversify interests represented on the councils and their advisory
committees. Stakeholders suggested that the councils and their advisory
committees should have more diverse membership. Methods for diversifying
the councils could include amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require
balanced representation from a wider set of stakeholders beyond commercial
and recreational fishery participants, and nominating a wider array of
stakeholders from each state to serve on the councils. While we recognize
that the councils do not have the authority to make these decisions,
stakeholders believed that diversifying interests represented on the
councils was important. Regarding representation on advisory committees,
stakeholders requested a more participatory process for selecting
committee members. For example, a council could determine the interests it
wishes to have represented and then allow people representing those
interests to select their own committee representatives. While
stakeholders may perceive this option as being fairer, it may be difficult
for groups to coordinate among themselves to select a representative.
Also, depending on the fishery, it may be difficult to find people willing
to serve on the advisory committees. While diversifying interests can
enhance participation, such a change could increase the length of the
decision-making process and make it more difficult for councils to reach
decisions.
o Help ensure that stakeholders have organized representation in the DAP
program development process. Stakeholders have noted that those who are
organized and have a designated representative who follows the process and
provides input to the council on their behalf are able to participate more
effectively in the DAP program development process. Intensive training
programs such as MREP may help stakeholders organize. For example, a
fisherman who attended MREP training said that he used information he
learned at MREP to form an organization to represent his fishing gear type
at New England Council proceedings. While organizing can enhance
participation, it may not be the role of the councils or NMFS to help
stakeholders organize.
Sharing decision-making authority. To help respond to stakeholders'
requests for more input into decision making, stakeholders suggested
holding a referendum and participation experts suggested using
collaborative or consensus-based decision making.
o Hold a referendum. A referendum is a means of submitting proposed rules
or laws to a direct vote. In the fishery management context, holding a
referendum allows a specified group of stakeholders to vote on whether to
develop a DAP program or whether to adopt a specific DAP plan. For
example, the Congress required NMFS to hold two referenda among red
snapper fishing license holders. In the first referendum, a majority
decided that the council should develop an IFQ program for red snapper,
and the second referendum will decide whether to submit the IFQ plan to
the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS was required to identify and notify
license holders, decide how to weight votes among eligible participants,
and then conduct the referendum. While holding a referendum can provide
some stakeholders with direct decision-making power, it excludes those who
are deemed ineligible to vote. Further, decisions regarding the weight of
each vote can create controversy among eligible stakeholders. Also, a
referendum can be time-consuming to administer and may be useful only if
stakeholders are sufficiently informed about the issues.
o Use collaborative or consensus-based decision making. Participation
experts suggested the use of collaborative or consensus-based approaches.
These approaches allow stakeholders to fully explore issues together,
often with the help of a facilitator, by working toward consensus rather
than making majority-based decisions. EPA has used this process with local
government, industry, community, and environmental interests to help
develop new strategies for achieving environmental protection. While
participation experts say that collaborative decision making can more
fully uphold the core participation principles we identified and help
participants find solutions to seemingly intractable problems, it can be
resource-intensive and does not guarantee agreement.
Conclusions
A wide range of stakeholders, such as council members, vessel owners, crew
members, and processors, have indicated that some stakeholders face
obstacles to effective participation under the current DAP program
development process. While the current council practices involve
stakeholders in ways that are prescribed by law, opportunities exist for
more strategic and effective stakeholder involvement that could lead to a
more inclusive decision-making process on what are frequently
controversial issues. Federal agencies have developed elements of
effective stakeholder participation frameworks that could serve as models
for NMFS and the councils, and could be adapted to the fisheries
management context. Based on this experience, we believe that commitment
and leadership by NMFS and the regional fishery management councils,
demonstrated by adopting core participation principles, and providing
guidance and training on how to strategically implement stakeholder
participation approaches, will be critical to enhancing stakeholder
participation in the development of DAP programs.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs,
we are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the
Administrator of NOAA to direct the Director of NMFS to:
o establish a formal policy for stakeholder participation, including
adopting a set of core principles to guide stakeholder participation
activities;
o provide guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council members,
and council staff on developing and using a strategic approach to
stakeholder participation; and
o ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for
stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic
approach.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Commerce for
review and comment. We received a written response from the Deputy
Secretary of Commerce that includes comments from NOAA on behalf of NMFS.
Overall, NMFS acknowledged that more can be done to improve stakeholder
participation and agreed with our recommendations.
The agency agreed with our first recommendation, to establish a formal
policy for stakeholder participation. NOAA said that the agency will form
an internal working group to develop a draft policy for stakeholder
participation and refine the core principles listed in our report for
application within the context of council operations. NOAA also said that
this policy will form an integral part of a broader agency outreach and
education policy currently being developed.
The agency also agreed with our second recommendation, to provide guidance
to the councils and train NMFS staff, council members, and council staff
on developing and using a strategic approach to stakeholder participation.
While the agency plans to add the stakeholder participation policy to its
training curriculum, our recommendation also included providing guidance
to the councils on how to develop and use a strategic approach to
stakeholder participation. In our report, we noted that federal agencies
such as DOE and EPA have created guidance to help staff design, implement,
and evaluate participation efforts. We believe NMFS could benefit from a
similar approach.
The agency also agreed in substance with our third recommendation, to
ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for stakeholder
participation that includes core principles and a strategic approach.
While we are encouraged that the agency is planning to work with council
members and staff to implement a participation framework that includes
jointly-developed core principles, it is important that the framework also
includes a strategic approach that NMFS and the councils can use to
effectively implement the core principles in specific situations.
NOAA also provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the
report as appropriate. NOAA's comments and our detailed responses are
presented in appendix IV of this report.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Director of the National
Marine Fisheries Service. We will also provide copies to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Anu K. Mittal Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Appendix I
This is the fourth in a series of reports on individual fishing quota
(IFQ) and other dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs requested by the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the former Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. For this report, we reviewed the development of domestic
DAP programs to determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery
management councils are using a framework for effective stakeholder
participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts
suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP
programs.
To determine the extent to which the regional fishery management councils
are using a framework for effective stakeholder participation, we reviewed
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Executive
Order 12866, which together set out many of the stakeholder participation
requirements for developing fishery management plans, including DAP
programs and other plans for managing fisheries in federal waters. We also
reviewed National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance to the regional
fishery management councils regarding the requirements for preparing and
reviewing DAP programs, and council statements of organization, practices,
and procedures. In addition, we reviewed the academic literature on public
participation theory and practice, our prior work, and federal agency and
international organization public participation guides, policies, and
guidance. Finally, we interviewed and obtained the views of participation
experts and federal agency officials on core principles for effective
stakeholder participation, strategies for implementing the principles, and
leading government models for establishing an effective participation
framework.
To determine the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest
for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP
programs, we interviewed DAP program stakeholders, participation experts,
and officials at federal agencies with public involvement programs. We
reviewed participation policies from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and public participation guidance
from EPA, DOE, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers,
the National Research Council, the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, and the World Bank.
For both objectives, we reviewed the activities of four regional fishery
management councils-the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific, and
Pacific councils. We selected these councils to obtain broad geographic
coverage of councils where DAP programs were being developed. We attended
council and advisory committee meetings in Fort Myers Beach, Florida;
Portland, Maine; Girdwood, Alaska; Foster City, California; and Portland,
Oregon. At these meetings and elsewhere, we interviewed DAP program
stakeholders and their representatives, including commercial vessel
owners, captains, and crew; recreational fishermen; fish dealers and
processors; environmentalists; fishing communities; and state and federal
fishery managers. We obtained their views on obstacles to participation
and potential methods for enhancing participation.
We also surveyed the members of the four fishery management councils whose
meetings we attended. Specifically, we prepared and distributed a
Web-based survey to voting and nonvoting members of these councils to
obtain their views on opportunities for stakeholder participation in the
development of DAP programs, obstacles to stakeholder participation, and
potential methods for enhancing participation. With the assistance of
council staff, we identified council members who had attended at least one
council meeting between August 2004 and August 2005, and we included all
of the 74 council members that met this criterion in our sampling frame.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
nonsampling error. For example, differences in how a particular question
is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or
the types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability
into the survey results. We included steps in both the data collection and
data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling
errors. For example, we pre-tested the survey with a council member from
each of the four councils and used their feedback to refine the survey.
Also, to reduce survey non-response, we sent e-mail reminders and
conducted follow-up telephone calls with nonrespondents. Overall, 78
percent of the council members in our sampling frame responded to our
survey, and all but the Gulf Council had response rates of 78 percent or
higher.
We notified participants of the survey's availability on August 29, 2005,
the day that Hurricane Katrina struck the Central Gulf of Mexico Coast.
Because of the devastation caused by the hurricane, we were not able to
contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council. Additionally, we did
not conduct follow-up telephone calls with Gulf Council members who
received, but did not complete, the survey, although they were sent e-mail
reminders. Given that we received responses from only 57 percent of the
Gulf Council members, we do not know if their responses differ materially
from the 43 percent who did not complete the survey. However, we do not
report information by council, and the survey data are reported as
illustrative data in support of other information collected in the course
of our review. Table 1, below, provides information on participation in
our council member survey.
Table 1: Participation in Council Member Survey
Council Number of members meeting Number of Number of Response
survey criteriaa non-contactsb respondentsc rate
(percent)
Gulf of 21 2 12 57.1
Mexico
New England 20 0 18 90.0
North 14 0 13 92.9
Pacific
Pacific 19 0 15 78.9
Total 74 0 58 78.4
Source: GAO.
aWhen an agency official had one or more designees who represented him or
her on the council, we selected the person who had attended the most
meetings between August 2004 and August 2005.
bWe were unable to contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council
because of Hurricane Katrina.
cBecause of Hurricane Katrina, we did not follow up to obtain responses
from the seven Gulf of Mexico Council members who did not initially
complete our survey.
We conducted our review from April through November 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary of Responses to GAO's Survey of Fishery Management Council
Members Appendix II
This appendix contains a summary of responses to the Web-based survey we
administered to the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific, and
Pacific fishery management councils. In that survey, we asked council
members for their views on obstacles to participation and potential
methods for enhancing participation in the development of DAP programs. We
surveyed 74 council members and received 58 responses. In the tables
below, totals may not equal 58 due to non-responses.
Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in the United
States Appendix III
This appendix describes the nine DAP programs that have been implemented
in the United States for fisheries under the management authority of the
regional fishery management councils. The term "IFQ" as used in this
appendix includes individual transferable quota.
Mid-Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog IFQ Program (1990)
Surfclams and ocean quahogs are mollusks found along the East Coast,
primarily from Maine to Virginia, with commercial concentrations off the
Mid-Atlantic Coast. While ocean quahogs are found farther offshore than
surfclams, the same vessels are largely used in each fishery. These
vessels tow hydraulic clam dredges that extract clams from the ocean
floor. The catch is emptied into metal cages holding roughly 32 bushels
each, off-loaded at one of a small number of landing sites, and sold to
processing facilities. Surfclams are used in strip form for fried clams
and in chopped or ground form for soups and chowders. Ocean quahogs are
used in soups, chowders, and white sauces. The fishery consists of a few
large firms that both catch and process, small processors, and independent
fishermen.
The surfclam fishery developed after World War II. When the surfclam
fishery declined in the mid-1970s, the ocean quahog fishery arose as a
substitute. Disease and overfishing led the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council to develop a management plan for surfclams and oceans
quahogs-the first such plan in the United States. Between 1977 and 1990,
the council and NMFS used a variety of controls to limit the harvest to
sustainable levels, such as restrictions on fishing times, areas fished,
clam sizes, gear, vessels, who fished, and how fishing occurred. An IFQ
program was established for the surfclam/ocean quahog fishery in 1990-the
first DAP program approved under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The program was
designed to help stabilize the fishery, reduce excessive investment in
fishing capacity, and simplify the regulatory requirements of the fishery
to minimize the government and industry cost of administering and
complying with program requirements. Program rules allow quota holders to
sell or lease their quota, but they provide no specific and measurable
limits on how much quota an individual can accumulate.
South Atlantic Wreckfish IFQ Program (1992)
Wreckfish are found in deep waters far off the South Atlantic coast,
primarily from Florida to South Carolina. They were first discovered in
the southern Atlantic in the 1980s by a fisherman recovering lost gear.
Wreckfish are fished by vessels over 50 feet in length using specialized
gear. These vessels are used primarily in other fisheries. Wreckfish are
sold fresh or frozen as a market substitute for snapper and grouper.
Within 3 years of the discovery of wreckfish, wreckfish landings increased
to more than 3 million pounds a year, and the number of vessels used for
catching wreckfish increased from 2 to 40. Because of concerns that the
resource could not support unlimited expansion, the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council added wreckfish to the snapper-grouper fishery
management plan and set the catch limit at 2 million pounds per year. The
council developed an IFQ program for wreckfish in 1991. After the IFQ
program was implemented in 1992, wreckfish landings declined rapidly,
partly because quota holders started participating in easier, less costly
fisheries with higher market values. Today, the wreckfish fishing fleet is
small, with only 3 vessels reporting wreckfish landings in 2004.
Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (1992)
The Bering Sea, bounded to the south by Alaska's Aleutian Islands, is one
of the most highly productive marine systems in the world and supports
some of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in U.S. waters.
Historically, most of the wealth generated by these fisheries did not flow
to Alaska Natives because they generally did not have the capital needed
to participate. The Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ)
Program was created by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in
1992 to provide western Alaska coastal communities the opportunity to
participate in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands fisheries that had been
closed to them. The program is designed to provide the means for starting
or supporting commercial fisheries business activities that will result in
an ongoing, regionally based, fisheries-related economy in western Alaska.
To accomplish this goal, the program allocates a percentage of all Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands catch quotas for groundfish, prohibited species,
halibut, and crab to the six CDQ groups that represent eligible CDQ
communities. CDQ groups then partner with one or more fishing and
processing companies, who pay royalties for the right to catch and process
their share of the allocation. The CDQ groups primarily use these royalty
payments to fund community development projects that are tied directly to
fishery-related activities or to support education. The program is jointly
managed by the state of Alaska and NMFS. The state is primarily
responsible for the day-to-day administration and oversight of the
economic development aspects of the program, and NMFS and the North
Pacific Council are primarily responsible for managing the groundfish and
halibut CDQ fisheries and for general program oversight.
Alaskan Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program (1995)
Pacific halibut and sablefish (black cod) are found off the coast of
Alaska, among other areas. The fishing fleets are primarily composed of
owner-operated vessels of various lengths that use hook-and-line gear for
halibut and hook-and-line or pot (fish trap) gear for sablefish. Some
vessels catch both halibut and sablefish. The International Pacific
Halibut Commission manages the halibut fishery under a treaty between the
United States and Canada. The Halibut Commission adopts conservation
regulations, such as season dates and area catch limits. NMFS, in
consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, has the
authority to develop other regulations that do not conflict with the
Halibut Commission's regulations.
Historically, there was no limit on the number of people who could
participate in the halibut and sablefish fisheries, and, starting in the
mid-1970s, the number of boats in these fisheries began to increase
rapidly. By the late 1980s, overcapitalization of the halibut and
sablefish fleets led to seasons that lasted less than 2 days in some areas
and a race for fish that put boats and fishermen at risk and resulted in
gear loss, excessive bycatch of species other than halibut, and poor
product quality, among other things. In response to these conditions, the
North Pacific Council developed an IFQ program that was implemented by
NMFS in 1995. The program was designed, in part, to help improve safety
for fishermen, enhance efficiency, reduce excessive investment in fishing
capacity, and protect the owner-operator character of the fleet. The
program set caps on the amount of quota that any one person may hold,
limited transfers to bona fide fishermen, issued quota in four vessel
categories, and prohibited quota transfers across vessel categories. The
program was amended in 2004 to allow 42 Gulf of Alaska coastal communities
to form nonprofit entities to purchase and hold quota.
Whiting Conservation Cooperative (1997)
The Pacific whiting fishery, located off the coast of Washington, Oregon,
and California, is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Whiting is harvested using mid-water trawl nets
(cone-shaped nets towed behind a vessel) and primarily processed into
surimi. The council has divided the Pacific whiting total allowable catch
among three sectors-vessels that deliver to onshore processors, vessels
that deliver to processing vessels, and vessels that catch and also
process.
In the 1990s, the fishery was overcapitalized and fishing companies were
engaged in a race for fish. In 1997, four companies operating the 10
catcher-processor vessels in the fishery voluntarily formed the Whiting
Conservation Cooperative, which is organized as a nonprofit corporation
under the laws of the state of Washington. The overall purposes of the
cooperative are to (1) promote the intelligent and orderly harvest of
whiting, (2) reduce waste and improve resource utilization, and (3) reduce
incidental catch of species other than whiting. The cooperative is not
involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of whiting products.
The cooperative's contract allocates the total allowable catch of Pacific
whiting for the catcher-processor sector among the cooperative's members,
who agree to limit their individual harvests to a specific percentage of
the catch allowed. Once individual allocations are made, the contract
allows for quota transfers among member companies. To monitor the catch,
the contract requires the members to maintain full-time federal observers
on their vessels. Member companies bear the cost of the observer coverage.
The contract also requires members to report catches to a private
centralized monitoring service. To ensure compliance, the contract
contains substantial financial penalties for members exceeding their share
of the quota.
Pollock Conservation Cooperative (1998)
The pollock fishery off the coast of Alaska is the largest U.S. fishery by
volume. The fishery is under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, which sets the total allowable catch each year. About
5 percent of the allowed catch is held in reserve to allow for the
incidental taking of pollock by other fisheries, 10 percent is allocated
to Alaska's community development quota program, and the remainder (called
the "directed fishing allowance") is allocated to the pollock fishery.
Pollock is harvested using mid-water trawl nets. Pollock swim in large,
tightly packed schools and do not co-mingle with other fish species.
Pollock are primarily processed into surimi and fillets. In the 1990s, the
Bering Sea pollock fishery was severely overcapitalized, producing a race
for fish. As a result, the fishing season was reduced from 12 months in
1990 to 3 months in 1998.
The fishery is composed of three sectors-inshore, offshore
catcher-processor, and offshore mothership (large processing vessel).1 The
American Fisheries Act2 statutorily allocated the pollock fishery total
allowable catch among these three sectors and specified the eligible
participants in each sector. The nine companies that operated the 20
qualified catcher-processor vessels formed the Pollock Conservation
Cooperative in December 1998 to end the race for fish.3 Under the
cooperative's agreement, members limit their individual catches to a
specific percentage of the total allowable catch allocated to their
sector. Once the catch is allocated, members can freely transfer their
quota to other members. Member vessels carry two federal observers at all
times and a private sector firm also tracks daily catch and incidental
catch data to ensure that each member stays within its agreed upon harvest
limits. To ensure compliance, the contract contains substantial financial
penalties for members exceeding their share of the quota. The cooperative
is not involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of pollock
products. In addition to operating under the terms of the cooperative's
contract, members of the cooperative must conduct fishing activities in
compliance with certain NMFS and council requirements regarding the
fishing season, area restrictions, and incidental catch limits.
Pacific Sablefish Permit Stacking Program (2002)
Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California
are managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Sablefish (black cod) is a desirable
groundfish species because of its high value per pound. Sablefish are
harvested using trawl and nontrawl gear. In 1987, the Pacific Council
established a sablefish allocation between trawl and nontrawl sectors. In
1994, the council created a limited entry program for most of the trawl
and nontrawl sablefish harvest and continued to divide the allocation
between the two sectors.
For many years, the sablefish fixed-gear (longline and fishpots or
"traps") sector has been separated into a small, year-round daily trip
limit fishery and a primary season fishery that typically harvested about
85 percent of the allocation. The council managed the primary season
fishery by setting the season short enough to ensure that the fishery
would not exceed its quota. By 1996, however, increases in vessel capacity
and competition for fish and decreases in the amount of fish available led
to a 5-day season in the primary season fishery and a race for fish. In
1997, the council developed a sablefish endorsement program that limited
participation in the primary season fishery to those permit holders with
historical participation in the sablefish fishery. In 1998, the council
created a three-tier program that placed fixed gear fishermen with
sablefish-endorsed permits in one of three tiers based on their catch
history. Each tier receives a certain number of pounds to fish annually,
with the first tier receiving the greatest allotment of fish and the third
tier receiving the lowest. Permit holders in the same tier receive the
same allotment of fish. While the fishing pace slowed somewhat under the
three-tier program, the primary season was still less than 10 days long.
To address issues of safety, efficiency, and equity, among others, the
council created a permit stacking program that was implemented in 2002.
Under this program, a vessel owner may register up to 3 sablefish-endorsed
permits on his vessel. The permits can come from different tiers. This
process, known as "permit stacking", is designed to reduce the number of
vessels fishing, and the fishing season was eventually extended to several
months.
Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Allocation Program (2004)
The Northeast multispecies fishery, under the jurisdiction of the New
England Fishery Management Council, consists of 15 groundfish species from
Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Historically, the council and NMFS
had managed the fishery through restrictions on the number of days fished,
closed areas, trip limits, minimum fish sizes, limited access, and gear
restrictions. Nonetheless, many stocks were overfished or approaching an
overfished condition, including stocks in the Georges Bank area-once a
particularly productive area at the southernmost part of a chain of huge
shoals that extend from Newfoundland to southern New England, on the edge
of the North American continental shelf. In response to a lawsuit filed
against NMFS alleging that the stock rebuilding plans implemented by NMFS
did not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a federal court judge
ordered that measures be taken by August 2003 to end overfishing in the
fishery.
The New England Council developed Amendment 13 to the Northeast
multispecies fishery management plan to bring the plan into conformance
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including ending overfishing and rebuilding
overfished stocks. Among other things, the amendment authorized the
Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector, established the sector area, and specified a
formula for allocating up to 20 percent of the total catch allowed for
Georges Bank cod to the sector. The sector submitted a sector allocation
proposal consisting of an operations plan for the sector, a contract
signed by all sector participants indicating their agreement to abide by
the operations plan, and an environmental analysis to comply with National
Environmental Policy Act requirements. NMFS approved the proposal and
allocated quota to the sector. Sector members can, in turn, allocate the
fish among themselves in any way they choose. About 60 fishermen
participated in the program in 2004.
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (2005)
The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area contains eight large crab
fisheries, the largest of which are the Bristol Bay red king crab, the
Bering Sea snow crab, and the Bering Sea Tanner crab fisheries.4 These
fisheries are subject to joint federal and state management with certain
elements of oversight, including monitoring, in-season management, and
observer coverage, deferred to the state of Alaska. Historically, the
fisheries had been managed using a guideline harvest level that set target
catch limits. By 2002, six of the eight crab fisheries had experienced
stock declines, which resulted in a race for fish or, in some cases,
closed fisheries. The race for fish put pressure on participants to fish
in unsafe weather conditions and work for long periods without rest,
resulting in a proportionately higher number of fatalities than in other
Alaskan commercial fisheries.
To alleviate overcapacity and safety issues associated with the race for
fish, the Congress mandated that the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council analyze several different approaches to rationalization. The
council selected its preferred alternative, a "three-pie voluntary
cooperative program," and presented its analysis to the Congress in August
2002. The program was subsequently mandated by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004 for NMFS approval by January 2005, and was
effective as of April 1, 2005. The program provides for allocations of
harvesting shares to harvesters, communities, and captains; processing
shares to processors; and landings and processing activity to designated
regions to preserve their historic interests in the fishery. The program
also permits harvesters to form voluntary cooperatives associated with one
or more processors holding processing shares. Because of the program's
novelty, the council included several safeguards in it, such as binding
arbitration to resolve price disputes, and extensive data collection and
review to assess the success of the rationalization program.
Comments from the Department of Commerce Appendix IV
The following are GAO's comments on NOAA's written comments provided by
the Deputy Secretary of Commerce in a letter dated February 3, 2006.
GAO Comments
1.We revised the text to make it clear that our report summarizes the
methods for enhancing stakeholder participation suggested by stakeholders
and participation experts; our report makes no recommendations regarding
these methods.
2.We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS has efforts underway to
streamline the process for developing fishery management plans.
3.We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS is a component of NOAA.
4.We revised the text to reflect that NMFS had implemented ten DAP
programs, including nine programs for fisheries under the management
authority of the regional fishery management councils and one program for
a fishery under the management authority of the Secretary of Commerce. We
also added a description of the Pacific Council's sablefish permit
stacking program in appendix III.
5.We agreed to provide NOAA with information on the participation experts
and literature we consulted in preparing our report.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments Appendix V
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841
In addition to those named above, Stephen D. Secrist, Assistant Director;
Candace M. Carpenter; Allen T. Chan; Nancy L. Crothers; Susan J. Malone;
Gregory A. Marchand; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this
report.
(360568)
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-289 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-9846 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-289 , a report to congressional requesters
February 2006
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder
Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs
Dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs are one tool the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses to help end overfishing and promote
conservation. Under a DAP program, NMFS sets an allowable catch in a
fishery and allocates the privilege to harvest a portion of the total to
eligible entities, such as fishermen. Because DAP programs can have
significant impacts on fishermen and their communities, many believe that
effective participation by fishermen and other stakeholders in the
development of these programs is critical. GAO was asked to determine (1)
the extent to which the regional fishery management councils are using a
framework for effective participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and
participation experts suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in
developing DAP programs.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that NMFS establish a formal policy for stakeholder
participation, including adopting a set of core principles; provide
guidance and training to the councils and others on developing and using a
strategic approach to stakeholder participation; and ensure that the
councils develop and implement a framework for effective stakeholder
participation.
NOAA reviewed a draft of this report and the agency generally agreed with
the findings and recommendations.
The fishery management councils that GAO reviewed lack key elements of an
effective stakeholder participation framework and therefore may be missing
opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in the DAP program
development process. Based on GAO's review of the literature and the
experience of leading federal agencies in stakeholder participation, such
a framework should include a strategic implementation approach that
embodies a set of core principles, such as making key information readily
available and understandable and fostering responsive, interactive
communication between stakeholders and decision makers. However, fisheries
stakeholders identified several areas where council practices do not fully
adhere to the core principles GAO identified. For example, while the
councils make DAP-related information available to stakeholders, this
information is not always presented in an easily understandable way. Also,
while stakeholders can testify at council meetings, according to
participation experts, this one-way communication is not an effective way
to share information because it does not lead to a dialogue between
stakeholders and decision makers. Unlike other federal agencies, NMFS has
neither developed a formal stakeholder participation policy nor provided
the councils with guidance or training on how to develop and use a
strategic approach to enhance stakeholder participation. While not legally
required to do so, if NMFS adopted such an approach it could help ensure,
among other things, that all relevant stakeholders are identified,
specific participation goals are defined, and participation plans are
implemented by the councils developing DAP programs.
Methods suggested by stakeholders and participation experts that could
enhance stakeholder participation in the DAP program development process
principally fall into five categories: (1) providing education and
outreach; (2) holding meetings using different times, locations, and
formats; (3) streamlining the DAP program development process; (4)
diversifying interests represented in the council process; and (5) sharing
decision-making authority. While using these methods can result in more
effective participation, particularly when they are employed as part of a
participation plan, these methods can also have certain disadvantages,
such as increased costs. For example, the Marine Resource Education
Project (MREP), which is sponsored by a group of universities in New
England, offers several examples of promising practices. MREP provides
stakeholders with training on fisheries management and science to help
them better understand the council process and DAP issues, teaches the
importance of being involved early and throughout the process, and
provides diverse stakeholders with the opportunity to exchange information
in informal settings. However, such training can be costly and may reach
relatively few stakeholders.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***