Fisheries Management
Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs Gao ID: GAO-06-289 February 23, 2006Dedicated 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-289, Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-289
entitled 'Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic
Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-
Based Programs' which was released on February 23, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
February 2006:
Fisheries Management:
Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder
Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-289]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-289, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
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 Found:
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.
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.
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 mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective
Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development Process:
Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of Methods
for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of Responses to GAO's Survey of Fishery Management
Council Members:
Appendix III: Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in
the United States:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Participation in Council Member Survey:
Figures:
Figure 1: Public Testimony before the Pacific Fishery Management
Council:
Figure 2: Steps in Using a Strategic Approach to Stakeholder
Participation:
Abbreviations:
CDQ: community development quota:
DAP: dedicated access privilege:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
IFQ: individual fishing quota:
MREP: Marine Resource Education Project:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Letter February 23, 2006:
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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:
* 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.
* Community quotas grant a specified portion of the total catch allowed
to a community. The community then decides how to allocate the
catch.[Footnote 6]
* Fishing cooperatives divide all or part of the available quota among
fishing and/or processing entities by means of contractual agreements.
* 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:
* using an open and clearly defined decision-making process;
* making key information readily available and understandable;
* actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input;
* involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making
process;
* fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders
and decision makers;
* using formal and informal participation methods; and:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 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.
* 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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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:
* establish a formal policy for stakeholder participation, including
adopting a set of core principles to guide stakeholder participation
activities;
* 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:
* 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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 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.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
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: Gulf of Mexico;
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 21;
Number of non-contacts[B]: 2;
Number of respondents[C]: 12;
Response rate (percent): 57.1.
Council: New England;
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 20;
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0;
Number of respondents[C]: 18;
Response rate (percent): 90.0.
Council: North Pacific;
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 14;
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0;
Number of respondents[C]: 13;
Response rate (percent): 92.9.
Council: Pacific;
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 19;
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0;
Number of respondents[C]: 15;
Response rate (percent): 78.9.
Total;
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 74;
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0;
Number of respondents[C]: 58;
Response rate (percent): 78.4.
Source: GAO.
[A] When 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.
[B] We were unable to contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council
because of Hurricane Katrina.
[C] Because 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.
[End of table]
We conducted our review from April through November 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of Responses to GAO's Survey of Fishery Management
Council Members:
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.
Survey Questions and Responses:
Q1. Have you attended at least one council meeting in the past year
(since August 2004)?
Response: Yes;
Number: 58.
Response: No;
Number: 0.
[End of table]
Q2. How useful are the following sources of stakeholder input in
helping you make DAP program decisions in your region?
Source: Scoping documents; Category: Very useful: 26;
Category: Moderately useful: 20;
Category: Slightly useful: 11;
Category: Not at all useful: 0;
Category: Do not use: 0;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Source: Written comments submitted for council meetings;
Category: Very useful: 25;
Category: Moderately useful: 24;
Category: Slightly useful: 8;
Category: Not at all useful: 0;
Category: Do not use: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 57.
Source: Public testimony at council meetings;
Category: Very useful: 34;
Category: Moderately useful: 18;
Category: Slightly useful: 6;
Category: Not at all useful: 0;
Category: Do not use: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Source: Advisory committee recommendations;
Category: Very useful: 42;
Category: Moderately useful: 12;
Category: Slightly useful: 4;
Category: Not at all useful: 0;
Category: Do not use: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Source: Informal interactions with stakeholders;
Category: Very useful: 29;
Category: Moderately useful: 19;
Category: Slightly useful: 10;
Category: Not at all useful: 0;
Category: Do not use: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Source: Other;
Category: Very useful: 12;
Category: Moderately useful: 0;
Category: Slightly useful: 0;
Category: Not at all useful: 0;
Category: Do not use: 2;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 18.
[End of table]
Q3. To what extent do opportunities exist for stakeholder participation
in the development of DAP programs in your region?
Category: Great many opportunities;
Number: 24.
Category: Many opportunities;
Number: 23.
Category: Some opportunities;
Number: 10.
Category: Little to no opportunities;
Number: 1.
Category: No answer;
Number: 0.
Category: Total;
Number: 58.
[End of table]
Q4. How well are the interests of the following stakeholder groups
represented in the development of DAP programs in your region?
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Very well represented: 23;
Category: Well represented: 24;
Category: Moderately well represented: 9;
Category: Poorly represented: 2;
Category: Not represented: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Very well represented: 7;
Category: Well represented: 21;
Category: Moderately well represented: 22;
Category: Poorly represented: 7;
Category: Not represented: 0;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Very well represented: 3;
Category: Well represented: 2;
Category: Moderately well represented: 18;
Category: Poorly represented: 30;
Category: Not represented: 5;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Very well represented: 7;
Category: Well represented: 16;
Category: Moderately well represented: 17;
Category: Poorly represented: 13;
Category: Not represented: 3;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Very well represented: 9;
Category: Well represented: 11;
Category: Moderately well represented: 19;
Category: Poorly represented: 13;
Category: Not represented: 2;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 55.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Very well represented: 24;
Category: Well represented: 15;
Category: Moderately well represented: 8;
Category: Poorly represented: 9;
Category: Not represented: 1;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Very well represented: 19;
Category: Well represented: 21;
Category: Moderately well represented: 13;
Category: Poorly represented: 4;
Category: Not represented: 1;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Consumers;
Category: Very well represented: 1;
Category: Well represented: 2;
Category: Moderately well represented: 5;
Category: Poorly represented: 28;
Category: Not represented: 21;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Members of the public;
Category: Very well represented: 3;
Category: Well represented: 4;
Category: Moderately well represented: 16;
Category: Poorly represented: 23;
Category: Not represented: 10;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Other;
Category: Very well represented: 0;
Category: Well represented: 0;
Category: Moderately well represented: 0;
Category: Poorly represented: 2;
Category: Not represented: 0;
Category: No answer: 15;
Category: Total: 17.
[End of table]
Q5. The following items have been suggested as possible obstacles to
stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. To what
extent does each item hinder participation for the following
stakeholder groups in your region?
Q5a. Difficulty understanding the council process:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 5;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 18;
Category: Does not hinder: 21;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 5;
Category: Moderately hinders: 18;
Category: Slightly hinders: 18;
Category: Does not hinder: 11;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 7;
Category: Substantially hinders: 23;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 9;
Category: Does not hinder: 3;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 56.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 13;
Category: Moderately hinders: 18;
Category: Slightly hinders: 9;
Category: Does not hinder: 10;
Category: No answer: 6;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 7;
Category: Substantially hinders: 12;
Category: Moderately hinders: 13;
Category: Slightly hinders: 13;
Category: Does not hinder: 9;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 4;
Category: Moderately hinders: 9;
Category: Slightly hinders: 14;
Category: Does not hinder: 28;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 0;
Category: Moderately hinders: 6;
Category: Slightly hinders: 13;
Category: Does not hinder: 36;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
[End of table]
Q5b. Complexity of DAP programs:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 8;
Category: Moderately hinders: 15;
Category: Slightly hinders: 18;
Category: Does not hinder: 13;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 13;
Category: Moderately hinders: 17;
Category: Slightly hinders: 15;
Category: Does not hinder: 7;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 11;
Category: Substantially hinders: 23;
Category: Moderately hinders: 9;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 4;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 56.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 18;
Category: Moderately hinders: 14;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 7;
Category: No answer: 8;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 6;
Category: Substantially hinders: 16;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 13;
Category: Does not hinder: 7;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 6;
Category: Moderately hinders: 13;
Category: Slightly hinders: 16;
Category: Does not hinder: 20;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 3;
Category: Moderately hinders: 10;
Category: Slightly hinders: 20;
Category: Does not hinder: 21;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 56.
[End of table]
Q5c. Difficulty understanding DAP documents:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 3;
Category: Substantially hinders: 5;
Category: Moderately hinders: 16;
Category: Slightly hinders: 15;
Category: Does not hinder: 16;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 16;
Category: Moderately hinders: 10;
Category: Slightly hinders: 14;
Category: Does not hinder: 11;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 17;
Category: Substantially hinders: 15;
Category: Moderately hinders: 11;
Category: Slightly hinders: 5;
Category: Does not hinder: 5;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 56.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 5;
Category: Substantially hinders: 14;
Category: Moderately hinders: 11;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 8;
Category: No answer: 8;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 8;
Category: Substantially hinders: 12;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 12;
Category: Does not hinder: 8;
Category: No answer: 5;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 4;
Category: Moderately hinders: 10;
Category: Slightly hinders: 15;
Category: Does not hinder: 22;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 3;
Category: Moderately hinders: 7;
Category: Slightly hinders: 19;
Category: Does not hinder: 24;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 56.
[End of table]
Q5d. Lack of awareness of council meeting times/dates:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 1;
Category: Moderately hinders: 6;
Category: Slightly hinders: 14;
Category: Does not hinder: 35;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 6;
Category: Moderately hinders: 5;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 33;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 7;
Category: Moderately hinders: 11;
Category: Slightly hinders: 14;
Category: Does not hinder: 18;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 14;
Category: Does not hinder: 22;
Category: No answer: 5;
Category: Total: 56.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 3;
Category: Substantially hinders: 5;
Category: Moderately hinders: 7;
Category: Slightly hinders: 12;
Category: Does not hinder: 24;
Category: No answer: 6;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 4;
Category: Slightly hinders: 9;
Category: Does not hinder: 39;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 1;
Category: Moderately hinders: 1;
Category: Slightly hinders: 9;
Category: Does not hinder: 43;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
[End of table]
Q5e. Cost of travel to attend council meetings:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 9;
Category: Moderately hinders: 9;
Category: Slightly hinders: 19;
Category: Does not hinder: 17;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 3;
Category: Substantially hinders: 15;
Category: Moderately hinders: 17;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 9;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 18;
Category: Substantially hinders: 20;
Category: Moderately hinders: 9;
Category: Slightly hinders: 4;
Category: Does not hinder: 4;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 6;
Category: Substantially hinders: 12;
Category: Moderately hinders: 13;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 9;
Category: No answer: 6;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 15;
Category: Moderately hinders: 13;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 10;
Category: No answer: 7;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 3;
Category: Moderately hinders: 3;
Category: Slightly hinders: 17;
Category: Does not hinder: 32;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 5;
Category: Slightly hinders: 9;
Category: Does not hinder: 39;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
[End of table]
Q5f. Time away from work to attend council meetings:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 5;
Category: Substantially hinders: 14;
Category: Moderately hinders: 15;
Category: Slightly hinders: 10;
Category: Does not hinder: 11;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 13;
Category: Substantially hinders: 18;
Category: Moderately hinders: 16;
Category: Slightly hinders: 6;
Category: Does not hinder: 2;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 23;
Category: Substantially hinders: 17;
Category: Moderately hinders: 8;
Category: Slightly hinders: 5;
Category: Does not hinder: 1;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 14;
Category: Moderately hinders: 15;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 9;
Category: No answer: 7;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 5;
Category: Substantially hinders: 8;
Category: Moderately hinders: 18;
Category: Slightly hinders: 10;
Category: Does not hinder: 9;
Category: No answer: 7;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 3;
Category: Substantially hinders: 6;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 17;
Category: Does not hinder: 18;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 5;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 36;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 57.
[End of table]
Q5g. Length of DAP program development process:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 14;
Category: Moderately hinders: 21;
Category: Slightly hinders: 12;
Category: Does not hinder: 6;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 5;
Category: Substantially hinders: 19;
Category: Moderately hinders: 19;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 3;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 8;
Category: Substantially hinders: 22;
Category: Moderately hinders: 14;
Category: Slightly hinders: 7;
Category: Does not hinder: 4;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 5;
Category: Substantially hinders: 18;
Category: Moderately hinders: 16;
Category: Slightly hinders: 7;
Category: Does not hinder: 6;
Category: No answer: 5;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 18;
Category: Moderately hinders: 16;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 5;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 11;
Category: Moderately hinders: 13;
Category: Slightly hinders: 15;
Category: Does not hinder: 13;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 9;
Category: Moderately hinders: 14;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 24;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
Q5h. Belief that one's input will not make a difference:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 7;
Category: Moderately hinders: 10;
Category: Slightly hinders: 18;
Category: Does not hinder: 17;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 8;
Category: Substantially hinders: 10;
Category: Moderately hinders: 14;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 13;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 14;
Category: Substantially hinders: 23;
Category: Moderately hinders: 6;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 4;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 9;
Category: Moderately hinders: 19;
Category: Slightly hinders: 8;
Category: Does not hinder: 11;
Category: No answer: 7;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 7;
Category: Substantially hinders: 10;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 12;
Category: No answer: 6;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 6;
Category: Moderately hinders: 4;
Category: Slightly hinders: 18;
Category: Does not hinder: 25;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 3;
Category: Moderately hinders: 7;
Category: Slightly hinders: 16;
Category: Does not hinder: 29;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
Q5i. Discomfort in speaking at council meetings:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 6;
Category: Moderately hinders: 14;
Category: Slightly hinders: 16;
Category: Does not hinder: 19;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 12;
Category: Moderately hinders: 18;
Category: Slightly hinders: 12;
Category: Does not hinder: 11;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 13;
Category: Substantially hinders: 20;
Category: Moderately hinders: 15;
Category: Slightly hinders: 4;
Category: Does not hinder: 6;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 8;
Category: Moderately hinders: 19;
Category: Slightly hinders: 10;
Category: Does not hinder: 15;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 7;
Category: Moderately hinders: 18;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 17;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 8;
Category: Slightly hinders: 17;
Category: Does not hinder: 30;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 0;
Category: Moderately hinders: 2;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 45;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
Q5j. Lack of representation on advisory committees:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 3;
Category: Slightly hinders: 12;
Category: Does not hinder: 39;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 6;
Category: Moderately hinders: 7;
Category: Slightly hinders: 16;
Category: Does not hinder: 25;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 14;
Category: Substantially hinders: 11;
Category: Moderately hinders: 8;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 12;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 4;
Category: Moderately hinders: 9;
Category: Slightly hinders: 15;
Category: Does not hinder: 23;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 4;
Category: Substantially hinders: 9;
Category: Moderately hinders: 6;
Category: Slightly hinders: 16;
Category: Does not hinder: 17;
Category: No answer: 6;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 0;
Category: Substantially hinders: 4;
Category: Moderately hinders: 4;
Category: Slightly hinders: 12;
Category: Does not hinder: 35;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 1;
Category: Moderately hinders: 7;
Category: Slightly hinders: 17;
Category: Does not hinder: 31;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
Q5k. Lack of representation on the council:
Stakeholder group: Vessel owners;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 2;
Category: Moderately hinders: 8;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 34;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 7;
Category: Moderately hinders: 12;
Category: Slightly hinders: 11;
Category: Does not hinder: 23;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Crew;
Category: Severely hinders: 15;
Category: Substantially hinders: 10;
Category: Moderately hinders: 10;
Category: Slightly hinders: 6;
Category: Does not hinder: 15;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen;
Category: Severely hinders: 3;
Category: Substantially hinders: 4;
Category: Moderately hinders: 8;
Category: Slightly hinders: 13;
Category: Does not hinder: 28;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Fishing communities;
Category: Severely hinders: 6;
Category: Substantially hinders: 7;
Category: Moderately hinders: 10;
Category: Slightly hinders: 13;
Category: Does not hinder: 17;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 57.
Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers;
Category: Severely hinders: 1;
Category: Substantially hinders: 3;
Category: Moderately hinders: 3;
Category: Slightly hinders: 13;
Category: Does not hinder: 36;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Stakeholder group: Environmentalists;
Category: Severely hinders: 2;
Category: Substantially hinders: 5;
Category: Moderately hinders: 7;
Category: Slightly hinders: 14;
Category: Does not hinder: 27;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
Q6. Have stakeholders used or attempted to use the legislative process
rather than the council process to get a DAP program approved in your
region?
Response: Yes;
Number: 36.
Response: No;
Number: 22.
Response: Total;
Number: 58.
[End of table]
Q7. How much of a reason are each of the following for why stakeholders
have used or attempted to use the legislative process rather than the
council process to get a DAP program approved?
Reason given: The program could not be authorized under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act;
Category: Major reason: 14;
Category: Minor reason: 6;
Category: Not a reason: 10;
Category: No answer: 5;
Category: Total: 35.
Reason given: The council process was taking too long;
Category: Major reason: 16;
Category: Minor reason: 14;
Category: Not a reason: 5;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 35.
Reason given: Stakeholders wanted to ensure that they got their way;
Category: Major reason: 28;
Category: Minor reason: 4;
Category: Not a reason: 4;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 36.
[End of table]
Q8. To what extent would the following activities improve the
effectiveness of stakeholder participation in the development of DAP
programs?
Activity: Being a member of a stakeholder organization;
Category: Greatly improve: 27;
Category: Moderately improve: 24;
Category: Slightly improve: 7;
Category: Would not improve: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Activity: Being informed about DAP issues;
Category: Greatly improve: 32;
Category: Moderately improve: 17;
Category: Slightly improve: 7;
Category: Would not improve: 1;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Activity: Getting involved early in the development of a DAP program;
Category: Greatly improve: 33;
Category: Moderately improve: 20;
Category: Slightly improve: 4;
Category: Would not improve: 1;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Activity: Staying involved throughout the development of a DAP program;
Category: Greatly improve: 37;
Category: Moderately improve: 19;
Category: Slightly improve: 1;
Category: Would not improve: 1;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Activity: Hiring a third party representative;
Category: Greatly improve: 18;
Category: Moderately improve: 17;
Category: Slightly improve: 13;
Category: Would not improve: 8;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Activity: Getting to know council members and staff;
Category: Greatly improve: 16;
Category: Moderately improve: 17;
Category: Slightly improve: 22;
Category: Would not improve: 2;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
Q9. Some of the following actions have been suggested to improve
stakeholder participation. How effective do you think each of these
actions would be in improving stakeholder participation in the
development of DAP programs?
Action: Reconciling the statutes governing fisheries management to
streamline the DAP plan development process;
Category: Very effective: 16;
Category: Moderately effective: 29;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 6;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 1;
Category: Very ineffective: 1;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 57.
Action: Expanding public outreach activities;
Category: Very effective: 8;
Category: Moderately effective: 28;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 20;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 2;
Category: Very ineffective: 0;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Action: Diversifying the interests represented on fishery council
advisory committees;
Category: Very effective: 8;
Category: Moderately effective: 19;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 22;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 3;
Category: Very ineffective: 1;
Category: No answer: 3;
Category: Total: 56.
Action: Diversifying the interests represented on fishery management
councils;
Category: Very effective: 10;
Category: Moderately effective: 16;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 23;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 3;
Category: Very ineffective: 2;
Category: No answer: 4;
Category: Total: 58.
Action: Holding a referendum for fishermen on whether to develop a DAP
program;
Category: Very effective: 5;
Category: Moderately effective: 18;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 11;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 8;
Category: Very ineffective: 16;
Category: No answer: 0;
Category: Total: 58.
Action: Holding a referendum for fishermen on whether to adopt a
specific DAP program prior to council approval;
Category: Very effective: 9;
Category: Moderately effective: 12;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 9;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 9;
Category: Very ineffective: 18;
Category: No answer: 1;
Category: Total: 58.
Action: Providing training to newly appointed council members on
fisheries science and management to enhance decision-making;
Category: Very effective: 19;
Category: Moderately effective: 30;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 4;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 2;
Category: Very ineffective: 1;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
Action: Providing training to interested members of the public on
fisheries science and management to help them understand the issues;
Category: Very effective: 17;
Category: Moderately effective: 14;
Category: As effective as ineffective: 16;
Category: Moderately ineffective: 7;
Category: Very ineffective: 2;
Category: No answer: 2;
Category: Total: 58.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in
the United States:
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).[Footnote
10] The American Fisheries Act[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 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.[Footnote 13] 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.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE:
Washington. D.C. 20230:
February 3, 2006:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report Fisheries Management: Core
Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder
Participation in Developing Quota Based Programs (GAO-06-289). I
enclose the Department of Commerce's comments on this draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David A. Sampson:
Enclosure:
NOAA Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled "Fisheries Management:
Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder
Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs" (GAO-06-289/February
2006):
General Comments:
The processes for the development and revision of federal Fishery
Management Plans (FMP) are deliberative, often lengthy, and always open
to the public, subject to certain limitations. Stakeholders may observe
and participate in any phase of the proceedings. The processes for
developing quota-based management schemes are no different. The
Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) conduct meetings and hearings, which are open
to public attendance and participation, and they develop reports,
alternatives analyses, and regulatory documents, all of which are
subject to public review and comment. Indeed, along with scientific
considerations and statutory obligations, stakeholder input forms the
basis of the process for developing and revising fishery management
plans.
Core Principles of Stakeholder Participation:
The report acknowledges the Councils' and NMFS's compliance with the
statutes that govern their regulatory development; however, one of the
key findings of the report is that the Councils and NMFS do not fully
adhere to certain core principles of participation. NMFS acknowledges
that more can be done to improve stakeholder participation. While
stakeholder participation has always been a key part of the Council
process, it has not always been optimal. We agree that NMFS and the
Councils should examine these principles of participation in light of
the statutory mandates, the deadlines imposed upon NMFS and the
Councils, and resource constraints.
Methods for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation:
The GAO report lists five suggested methods for enhancing stakeholder
participation. Some of the more specific tasks listed under each
suggestion have already been in practice around the country. However,
several of the suggested methods will require congressional involvement
and action, or are beyond the scope of authority of NMFS and the
Councils. For example:
* Under "Streamlining the dedicated access privilege (DAP) program
development process," (page 24) GAO recommends the adoption of
administrative measures to streamline the regulatory process and
amendment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSFCMA) to incorporate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements. The former is underway and new procedural efficiencies
are constantly sought by Council and NMFS leadership and staff alike.
The latter will require the involvement of Congress. The MSFCMA is
currently under consideration for reauthorization and amendment by
Congress and the pending bills contain provisions relating to NEPA.
Likewise, "Diversifying interests represented in the council process,"
(page 25) will require the involvement of Congress. The report states
that stakeholders felt the Councils and advisory committees should have
more diverse membership. While the Secretary of Commerce has limited
discretion in the selection of nominees, the basic representative make-
up of the Councils is determined by Congress in Section 302(b) of the
MSFCMA. The membership of advisory committees is determined by Councils
to fulfill specific tasks. While representation is important, of
primary concern to the Councils and NMFS is the committees have the
necessary expertise to perform their missions and that they are of
appropriate size to be productive.
* Another task under "Diversifying interests represented in the council
process," is to "Help ensure that stakeholders have organized
representation," (page 26). NMFS and Councils cannot support this
activity. The GAO report correctly notes that this activity "may not be
the role of the Councils or NMFS." Stakeholder interests in these
processes are very diverse. It is not the role of NMFS and Councils to
determine with whom any individual would have sufficient shared
interests.
* Under the final suggested method for enhancing stakeholder
participation, "Sharing decision-making authority" (pages 26-27), the
report offers the ideas of referenda and consensus-based decision
making. The MSFCMA expressly requires that all "decisions of any
Council shall be by majority vote of the voting members present and
voting." After the Councils take final action on their FMPs, the
fishery management action is transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce
who possesses the ultimate authority to approve, disapprove, or
partially approve Council FMPs. There may be a place for consensus-
based processes in the development of management alternatives or when
brainstorming to identify potential solutions to problems; however,
decision making by voting is the responsibility of the Council. Because
any process other than majority vote would violate the MSFCMA, any
changes to this decision-making scheme would require an amendment to
the Act.
In fact, Congress is considering amendments to the MSFCMA that would
provide for referenda in the development of DAPs in certain regions of
the country. Congress, NMFS, and the Councils will have to weigh the
benefits of greater stakeholder involvement through such referenda
against the need for procedural efficiencies.
NOAA Response to GAO Recommendations:
The draft GAO report states, "To enhance stakeholder participation in
the development of DAP programs, we are recommending that the Secretary
of Commerce direct the Director of NMFS to:
Recommendation 1: Establish a formal policy for stakeholder
participation, including adopting a set of core principles to guide
stakeholder participation activities.
NOAA Response: NMFS agrees with this recommendation. The core
principles of participation noted by GAO are embodied in the various
statutes governing Council and NMFS proceedings. But nowhere are
principles of participation for the Agency articulated in a single,
concise format. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator for NMFS will
form an internal working group of outreach professionals from the NMFS
headquarters and regional offices and the Councils to develop a draft
policy for stakeholder participation. The working group will refine the
core principles listed in this report for application within the
context of Council operations, and will draft the policy and describe
the NMFS and Council-specific activities that may be necessary to put
the policy into practice. This stakeholder participation policy will
form an integral part of a larger, broader Agency outreach and
education policy currently in development.
Recommendation 2: Provide guidance to the Councils and train NMFS
staff, Council members, and Council staff on developing and using a
strategic approach to stakeholder participation.
NOAA Response: NFMS agrees with this recommendation. The draft report
emphasizes training as a means of obtaining greater involvement of the
stakeholders. NMFS is committed to providing additional training on a
wider variety of subjects and will add the policy on stakeholder
participation to the syllabus.
Additionally, Congress, recognizing the importance of training, has
included a provision in the bill to reauthorize the MSFCMA to require
training for Council members on the public processes for the
development of fishery management plans.
Recommendation 3: Direct the Councils to develop and implement a
framework for stakeholder participation that includes core principles
and a strategic approach.
NOAA Response: Stakeholder participation is the shared concern of NMFS
and the Councils. NMFS will collaborate with Council staffs and members
to implement a framework for stakeholder participation that includes
the jointly developed core principles. The national working group that
will develop the stakeholder participation policy will be the first
opportunity for outreach professionals from the NMFS regions and
Councils to collaborate on this effort, to explore outreach and
participation ideas, and to set priorities for future activities to
enhance stakeholder participation.
NOAA Technical and Editorial Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled
"Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would
Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs"
(GAO-06-289/February 2006):
Recommended Changes for Factual/Technical Information Page 3, first
paragraph, second sentence:
The National Marine Fisheries Service is a component of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which in turn is a part
of the Department of Commerce. This distinction should be made
throughout the draft report. For example, the recommendation on page 28
should read, ". . . the Secretary of Commerce direct the Administrator
of NOAA to . . ."
Page 9, third paragraph:
At the time of the review by GAO, NMFS had implemented ten dedicated
access privilege programs, not eight as indicated in the draft report.
In addition to the eight programs listed, NMFS manages a Sablefish
permit stacking quota-based fishery through the Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Also, a quota-based management program is in place
for the small fleet of Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seiners. The tuna
Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ program is not implemented through a
fishery management council, and so the report's findings would not be
applicable to it.
Passim:
The report refers many times to the opinions of "participation
experts." NMFS's activities sparked by this report would benefit from
access to the same expertise. We request that GAO provide contact
information for its panel of participation experts and/or a list of the
publications on the subject that were consulted.
Editorial Comments:
None.
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.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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):
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this report, the term "stakeholders" means individuals or
representatives of groups that are affected by or interested in a
particular DAP program, including the states, vessel owners, captains,
crew members, processors, fishing communities, environmentalists,
consumers, and members of the public.
[2] Pub. L. No. 94-265 (1976) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-
1883).
[3] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Better Information Could Improve
Program Management, GAO-03-159 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002).
[4] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection
and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation, GAO-04-277 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 24, 2004).
[5] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Management Costs Varied and Were
Not Recovered as Required, GAO-05-241 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11,
2005).
[6] IFQs and community quotas are the only types of DAPs currently
authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and community quotas are
limited to two geographic areas.
[7] The environmental impact statement included appended regulatory
analyses.
[8] See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).
[9] The Congress, through the 1998 American Fisheries Act, provided the
framework for developing the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. Also,
the Congress mandated the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab
rationalization program for NMFS approval in 2005. See appendix III for
descriptions of these two DAP programs.
[10] The inshore sector is comprised of catcher vessels harvesting
pollock for processing plants located on or near the shore. The
offshore catcher-processor sector is comprised of catcher-processor
vessels (vessels that both catch and process pollock) and catcher
vessels catching pollock for processing by catcher-processors. The
offshore mothership sector consists of catcher vessels harvesting
pollock for processing by motherships (large vessels that process but
do not catch fish).
[11] Pub. L. No. 105-277, Division C, tit. II (1998).
[12] The offshore catcher-processor sector received 40 percent of the
directed fishing allowance of the pollock fishery.
[13] The other five fisheries are the Western Aleutian Islands golden
king crab, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Western Aleutian
Islands red king crab, Pribilof blue and red king crab, and St. Matthew
blue king crab.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
