Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
It was with considerable fanfare and no small amount of controversy when two commissions – one private, one public – released the first comprehensive reports since the Stratton Commission of the 1960’s reviewing the nation’s ocean policy. Since both reports proposed major changes in U.S. fisheries, we thought we’d take a look at what has happened since the privately-funded Pew Oceans Commission and the Congressionally-created U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) issued their findings and recommendations – the progress and the stalemates.
By far the most controversial of the two, the Pew Oceans Commission report (www.pewoceans.org) was issued in June 2003 (see The Fishermen’s News, June 2003, “A New Look At Managing Oceans, Fisheries: Fishermen Need to be Engaged in the National Review of Ocean Policy,” at: www.pcffa.org/fn-jun03.htm). It called for a massive overhaul of the way the nation manages its fisheries, from a major commitment of new funds, to new governance, to a call for controlling urban run-off and coastal sprawl.
Although the only commission with representatives from either commercial or sport fishing, the findings and recommendations of the Pew Commission hit a sensitive nerve with many in the fishing industry from the National Fisheries Institute within the Beltway to some of the industry’s biggest players in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska who had profited immensely under the current system. Many of the Pew findings were critical of aspects of U.S. fisheries, including the damaging affect of some types of fishing gear on habitat, levels of bycatch in some fisheries, financial conflicts of interests of some council members, and councils failing to follow the advice of their scientists that resulted in overfishing. The Pew Commission also recommended establishment of regional ecosystem councils.
The call for establishment of ecosystem councils drew the ire of the regional fishery councils which misinterpreted these new entities., The ecosystem councils were to be made up of the heads of all agencies whose activities affected oceans or ocean resources, and were considered to be a threat to regional fishery council management authority. In truth, the ecosystem councils were intended to empower the fishery councils to be able to address those non-fishing issues affecting fishing that fishery councils were not given authority over under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Representative Richard Pombo, chair of the House Resources Committee, and one of the leaders in Congress trying to weaken protections afforded fish and wildlife under the law, even chided the Pew report as being a “coffee table book.”
Then, in April 2004 the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued its report (www.ocean.commission.gov). That report was highly detailed and although some of its recommendations varied from those made by Pew, the findings of the two Commissions were remarkably similar. Both, for example, recommended a move toward ecosystem-based management (see the May 2004 Fishermen’s News, “Ocean Commissions’ Recommendations: The Good And The Bad,” at: www.pcffa.org/fn-may04.htm). Indeed, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the Pew recommendations on such things as aquaculture and individual fishing quotas were probably better for fishermen than those coming from USCOP. USCOP, however, did propose some detail for a trust fund that at least at PCFFA and the Institute for Fisheries Resources we have believed critical – more so than any broad policy changes – to pay for the research, management and selective gear development essential for sustainable fisheries (see the August 2003 edition of the Fishermen’s News, “Planning And Paying For Future Fisheries Research: Fish Stocks And Fishing Communities Depend On Good Data,” at: www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm).
In December, the Bush Administration issued its “U.S. Ocean Action Plan” (www.ocean.ceq.gov ) required by the legislation establishing USCOP and in response to the USCOP report. Other than a few million dollars for coral reef protection, the Administration’s plan lacked any real substance and no money, except for corals. Moreover, it promoted offshore aquaculture (the “seafood deficit” thing) and privatization of public fishery resources. The “action” plan proved troublesome for most fishermen, and a disappointment for those pushing some or all of the recommendations of the ocean commissions.
Recognizing that none of the recommendations were likely to move, after each commission had spent 3 years of hearings, meetings and deliberations preparing their individual reports, the chairs of the two commissions – POC’s Leon Panetta and USCOP’s Admiral James Watkins -began collaborating closely to promote the issues of joint concern to the commissions. In late 2004 and early January 2005, a group of commissioner worked with Meridian Institute “to design a collaborative effort to catalyze ocean policy reform.” The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (JOCI), composed of five members from each commission, set as its primary goal to “accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform” (www.jointoceancommission.org).
The core priorities of this joint effort “include the need for wide incorporation of ecosystem-based management, ocean governance reforms, improved fisheries management, increased reliance on science in management decisions, and more funding for ocean and coastal programs.” With both Pew and federal dollars gone, the new initiative is primarily being underwritten by the David & Lucille Packard Foundation, which has funded a number of marine initiatives, including some by the commercial fishing industry.
Okay, the commissions have issued their reports and they’ve now they have formed a joint oceans commission initiative, so what? Let’s take a look at what progress the commissions’ have had in implementing their recommendations.
A bright spotlight that nearly blinded us. Probably the greatest progress the commissions’ have made has been in fisheries. It’s true many of the regional councils were already taking on the issues of overfishing, bycatch, and habitat damage caused by certain types of fishing operations. The commissions’ reports, however, highlighted these problems, causing discomfort for us in the fisheries, but helped to push along our industry, the regional councils and NMFS to address these problems faster than they may have otherwise. While many of us may not want to admit it, the simple act of the commissions’ shining a light on these issues has helped bring about change.
Incorporating Change Through MSA Reauthorization. The second thing that has happened has been the incorporation of at least four of the major fishery recommendations in the Senate Commerce Committee adopted bill, S.2012, passed in December, 2005, for reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA) (see the December 2005 Fishermen’s News, “Finally, An MSA Reauthorization Bill! Forward Progress Seen With Bipartisan Senate Measure,” at: www.pcffa.org/fn-dec05.htm). Although the solutions offered in this bill, passed unanimously out of committee, differ somewhat from those recommended by the commissions, they do address issues raised by the reports and have support from the JOCI.
Council Reform. The Commerce Committee bill strengthens the conflict-of-interest provisions for council members, called for the commissions, but does not preclude fishermen from being members of or voting on a regional council, which was a concern of fishermen. Moreover, the Senate language addresses a concern raised for years by PCFFA regarding the conflict of interest that non-fishing, paid staff of associations or organizations have amongst council members. Most of these individuals are not on the councils to lend their fishery expertise, if any, but simply to get the best allocation for those they work for. The Senate bill also calls for the training of council members. It’s not mandatory, as recommended by USCOP, but it is a step in the right direction.
Science-Based Decision-Making. The so-called “separating conservation from allocation” issue had been controversial. The compromise that seems to work for everyone has been to legislate the successful model used by the North Pacific and the manner in which that council follows the advice of its Scientific & Statistical Committee. Allocation decisions from the NPFMC have been controversial and some, such as BASI crab “rationalization,” roundly criticized, but the council has no overfished fisheries. The Senate bill further strengthens the scientific committees by requiring they be compensated for their work.
Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management. This recommendation was given almost no chance of inclusion in the Senate, due to concerns raised by Senator Ted Stevens, that such a requirement would foment litigation. At the eleventh hour Senator Barbara Boxer developed language that Senator Stevens would accept while still pressing ahead with the ecosystem-based management the commissions recommended. Her language does not mandate ecosystem-based management, but makes it permissive (therefore minimizing the potential for a lawsuit on that issue) and provides additional financial support for those councils pursuing ecosystem-based fishery management plans.
Trust Fund. Finally, Senator Boxer, one of the bill’s co-authors, was successful in getting into place, the concept anyway, for a trust fund for fisheries. A trust fund, such as that in place for recreational fisheries – the Wallop-Breaux Fund – is seen as essential to assure there will be monies sufficient to carry-out essential fishery programs, including research and management. A trust fund with its own funding source, separate from annual federal appropriations, is seen as critical given the current size of the federal deficit and national priorities. Both commissions’ recommended the establishment of ocean trust funds; Senator Boxer’s language is the beginning of one at least for fisheries. That language provides a beginning place for the JOCI and fishing groups to further expand the concept when the bill hits the full Senate, and in the House.
Regional Initiatives. As a result of the ocean commissions’ reports, a number of state and regional ocean initiatives have begun around the country. Here on the west coast, in 2004, the California Legislature passed the California Ocean Protection Act (COPA), establishing the California Ocean Protection Council. In Oregon, the State Legislature reconstituted its Ocean Policy Advisory Committee (OPAC). In Washington, Governor Christine Gregoire established in December the Puget Sound Partnership to restore that large inland ocean body and provided funding for state agencies to develop and informal advisory group on oceans – the Washington State Ocean Policy Working Group. Finally, in Alaska, Governor Frank Murkowski established in December 2004, his Alaska Ocean Policy Cabinet to respond to the USCOP recommendations for regional ocean governance.
It is too early to say whether these state and regional ocean initiatives will prove little more than hype, prove problematic for fishermen (e.g., pushes for large scale marine reserves), or actually be beneficial. It is a place where involvement by the fishing fleet is possible, a place where fishermen involvement could tip the balance between what is ineffectual or problematic and that, which may do some good.
The commissions, thus, have had some impact to date by highlighting problems –in fisheries at least, fishery legislation, and stimulating regional initiatives.
The disappointment to date with the lack of action on commission recommendations, are in two main areas: one is addressing the non-fishing impacts affecting oceans and living marine resources and, a second, is building a constituency for oceans as opposed to “top - down” solutions.
No Action on Non-Fishing Issues Affecting Fishing. We have not seen wide spread support, much less any successful initiative in the Congress for implementing many of the other ocean recommendations made by the commissions outside of fisheries. Ocean governance, control of pollution and run-off (e.g., the nitrogen laden waters creating dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay), control of urban sprawl, and establishment of an ocean trust fund have not been acted on seriously in the Congress. There is one large oceans bill in the Senate by Senator Boxer and the “Oceans 21” bill in the House introduced by members of that body’s Ocean Caucus, but it is doubtful any of these ocean bills will even get a hearing in this Congress, much less a vote.
This is unfortunate, because as most fisheries progress to the point where fishing activities are conducted on a sustainable model, fish stocks and fisheries remain at risk in many parts of the nation from non-fishing impacts. These are impacts identified by the commissions, where regional councils or state fishery authorities have no power, and a policy change at a higher level is required.
Building a Local Constituency. Finally, to make effective change, to make policies successful, there has to be support at the local level. People supported the Clean Water Act, not just because Congress passed it, but because people were tired of rivers catching fire and not being able to swim or fish in their local lake. Likewise the commissions to effect policy change for our oceans have to take the message to the public. It’s not hard to take it to our industry, we recognize, or should anyway, that abundant fish stocks rely on healthy ocean waters and promoting fish as a healthy food choice means eliminating pollution sources.
The public likes its oceans and most of its charismatic characters, it likes to go to the beach and thrill to videos by Costeau or Ballard, but its level of understanding of the oceans, including their importance and the threats to our marine life, is not high. Perhaps, the most important focus for the JOCI, we believe, is not simply getting Congressional members to introduce bills, but to begin developing an ocean constituency that can work with fishermen to protect the waters we rely on for abundant production of fish and for coastal communities to support our families.
Pietro Parravano is a commercial fisherman from Half Moon Bay, California. He is President of the Institute for Fisheries Resources and was a member of the Pew Oceans Commission. Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. PCFFA can be reached at its Southwest Regional Office at: PO Box 29370, SF, CA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080, and at its Northwest Regional Office at: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, (541)689-2000, or by email to: fish1ifr@aol.com. PCFFA web site is at: www.pcffa.org.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive