|
December 10, 2003
Draft Principles and Preliminary Recommendations – For public comment
December 10, 2003
John Joseph Moakley
Courthouse 1
Courthouse Way, Boston
My name is David Bergeron. I am Executive Director of the Massachusetts
Fishermen’s Partnership. The Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership (MFP) is
an umbrella organization of 18 commercial fishing associations representing
all gear and geographic sectors of the Massachusetts fishing industry. The
organization was created to promote the common interests and economic
viability of commercial fishing families. The MFP is sponsor of the Fishing
Partnership Health Plan, which provides comprehensive healthcare coverage for
more than 1800 members in the fishing community.
The MFP also operates a Collaborative Research Extension Program. This
relatively new program, funded by the Northeast Consortium, establishes
working partnerships between fishermen and scientists. We are working with a
number of research institutions, including MIT Sea grant, Boston University
Marine Program, SMAST at the University of Massachusetts, and others, to go
beyond words and establish programmatic capacity to build understanding and
dialogue between fishermen and scientists.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. The Ocean Management
Task Force (OMTF) is to be commended for bringing forward recommendations
that point towards ways to improve the future health of Massachusetts' oceans
and marine fisheries. The MFP generally supports the OMTF recommendations. We
offer comments in an effort to assist in clarifying the recommendations. We
also wish to propose some additional items the OMTF should consider that
would strengthen the overall goals of the recommendations.
The MFP is particularly encouraged by the OMTF's emphasis on the need to
invest in more and improved research, expanding accessibility to oceans data,
and greatly enhancing public outreach. However, we wish more emphasis were
placed in the document on protecting marine fisheries and their habitats from
non-fishing threats that are often land-based, such as runoff and non-point
pollution.
We agree with the notion that the health of our oceans is something that
concerns all citizens. All citizens who eat and enjoy healthy seafood are
linked to our ocean resources in a most intimate way through our fragile
fisheries.
Theme of our Perspective
The overarching theme of our organization’s perspective is that the
fishing community must be present and participating in oceans research and
management. The importance of this point is fundamentally based on the fact
that people who fish are most familiar with marine resources, their habitats,
as well as the businesses and communities who depend on the fishery. As such,
the successful implementation of any oceans research and management
recommendations set forth by the OMTF must integrate the active participation
of the fishing community throughout every step in the process.
Collaborative Research
Most important to the need for involvement of the fishing community is the
permanent need to promote “collaborative research” in which fishermen and
scientists work jointly as colleagues to identify critical issues, design and
execute research, and work together in the interpretation of data and the
dissemination of the findings of research. There is a growing body of
literature that underscores the efficiency of doing marine and fisheries
related research in this collaborative way.
The United States Congress has recognized the importance of collaborative
research to resolve critical scientific issues in fisheries science. Congress
has appropriated tens of millions of dollars towards collaborative research
in recent years, and the federal agency charged with the management of
federal fisheries resources, the National Marine Fisheries Service, has made
collaborative research a high priority.
We recommend that the OMTF put more thought and emphasis into the role
that collaborative research will have in its vision and recommendations.
Recommendations 9 and 13 should be edited with this new goal in mind (see
additional comments below). But the entire draft document should be carefully
reviewed with this important concept in mind.
The OMTF has expressed a priority for closely coordinating state resources
with those at the federal level (Recommendation #7). Highlighting
collaborative research would also help the OMTF promote this goal by shaping
its vision and recommendations in a way that leverages the greatest synergy
with federal agencies and the evolving priority to promote collaborative
research in Congress.
We will now offer comments directly to items in the draft document.
Value Biodiversity
The principle to “Value Biodiversity” is an important goal, but its aim to
benefit the productivity of marine fisheries needs to be made explicit. The
productivity of the fishery is not always served by the increase in the
abundance of all species. The fishing community has always viewed
biodiversity as a function of fishery productivity.
There are known and unknown connections between the many different species
in the marine environment. Some of these connections are well known by
fishermen and others are also well understood by science. There are
circumstances when the overabundance of some predator species is
counter-productive to the productivity of the fishery. When this occurs,
management should be able to consider the overall ecosystem and promote
management of biodiversity to maintain a balance among species towards the
goal of optimum productivity of the fishery. This is what fishermen mean when
they call for ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management. If the
principle of “value biodiversity” assumes that management will promote a
healthy balance among species to promote optimum productivity of the fishery,
then the fishing community can support it. But, on the other hand, if “value
biodiversity” means that the ecosystem should be allowed to run wild without
any checks or balances to prevent predators from becoming too abundant, then
this concept of the principle of “value biodiversity” is harmful. The
principle of value biodiversity is ambiguous in the draft document and does
not make this distinction.
We propose that the principle of “Value Biodiversity” be edited to make
it clear that biodiversity will be guarded to “protect and enhance the
abundance and diversity of native species while ensuring the optimum
productivity of fisheries.”
Clarifying this principle of value biodiversity is very important in
connection with how we think about Recommendation 9 in the draft document.
Use Best Available Information
The Fishermen’s Partnership agrees that “management decisions should be
based” on sound information, but we are concerned that this standard is too
loosely defined to provide for good governance decision-making. Elsewhere in
the draft recommendations, the OMTF calls for improved research and better
dissemination of information. While we agree with the recommendation to
improve research and outreach, it is not sufficient to build policy and
governance on an ambiguous standard for scientific information that will be
used in management.
We propose that the principle be edited to read that management
decisions should be based on statistically adequate scientific information,
and that where insufficient data exists, research will be conducted to
provide adequate information.
This recommendation is furthermore important in view of the call by some
for the use of the so-called “precautionary principle” in management.
Exponents of the “precautionary principle” embrace the notion that
activities, even activities which have occurred for many years or decades,
should be disallowed until there is proof that the activities do not harm the
environment. This is the same as proposing that governance should practice
the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. No business can be reasonably
asked to accept that investment decisions should be based on a hypothesis. If
there is suspicion that some activity or activities, especially activities
which have traditionally occurred for a very long time, may be doing harm,
the correct course for government is to conduct the necessary fact finding
research before a public policy process should be able to exclude activities.
Recommendation 1: Oceans Resources Management Act
As threats to the health of oceans and fisheries become more acute and
requests to exploit the marine environment and habitats increase, there is a
need for better coordination of research, information sharing, permitting,
regulation and management. It makes sense to develop a comprehensive way to
coordinate ocean management, prevent duplication, and ensure that important
matters concerning the health of our ocean resources and habitats are not
overlooked.
The Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP) is guardedly supportive
of this recommendation provided the fishing community’s participation is
guaranteed and the Massachusetts Fisheries Commission continues to carry out
its role and retain authority over the details of fisheries management
issues.
There is no reason the Massachusetts Fisheries Commission could not
continue to provide this function within a broader institutional framework
that would coordinate oceans management concerns at a broader level. As such,
the Division of Marine Fisheries as well as the fishing community should be
institutionally integrated into whatever broader organizational framework is
created to implement the OMTF’s first recommendation.
Moreover, fishermen need to be involved in the next steps in the
development of OMTF recommendations through the design stages of whatever
institutional or program structures may be proposed, participate in the
preparation of legislative language as well as have a strong role in the
implementation of the programs that would result. This participation must
also reflect the diversity of the geographic and gear sectors of the
Massachusetts fishery.
Recommendation 9:
The Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP) fully supports the goal
of Recommendation 9 in the draft document to “ensure that the
environmental agencies have the statutory authority to designate and protect
areas that have special, sensitive and/or unique estuarine and marine habitat
and life, with decisions to exercise that authority based on sound scientific
information and clear procedural steps. These designated areas for special
levels of protection could include areas that require particular protection
of important fisheries and fishing activities, sensitive and/or unique
estuarine and marine habitats and species, and/or the protection and study of
marine biodiversity and ecosystems.” This authority is most important to
protect fisheries and their habitats from non-fishing threats such as sources
of non-point pollution and other threats to the marine environment. While we
recognize that this is necessary in certain conditions, the Massachusetts
Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP) does not support this recommendation as it is
presently stated. This recommendation needs to be clarified in several
ways before we can support it.
This recommendation needs to be clarified in how it defines “sound
scientific information.” This recommendation should be edited to read that
“statistically adequate scientific information” would be required before
decisions can be made to exclude traditional activities, including fishing.
The fishing community has been severely regulated as to where, when, and
how to fish. There are large areas covering many thousands of square miles
where fishing is excluded in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. The fishing
community feels that all industries should be required to avoid harmful and
avoidable impacts to marine fisheries and their habitats when these impacts
impede fisheries productivity, but we do not expect that decisions to exclude
activities should be made without statistically adequate information. We
advocate the very same standard on the quality of science to be used in
management decisions whether it concerns the fishing industry or any other
industry.
The MFP has not been able to discuss the merits of the argument that there
may be a need to establish certain small, discrete areas that are closed to
extractive or other activities – including fishing – for research purposes.
We have not had time to discuss, for example, whether or not we agree that
there is a need for any more areas closed to fishing as control areas to
assess the potential benefits of closed area strategies or to accumulate
baseline data to support ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management.
Most fishermen believe that there are already sufficient areas closed to
provide ample research opportunities in addition to promoting the rebuilding
of fish stocks.
The Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP) may be able to support
Recommendation 9 if it is solidly and explicitly grounded in collaborative
research, and specific administrative procedures are described in more detail
to guarantee community involvement in the decision-making process.
Since fishermen are more familiar with the habits of marine fisheries and
their habitats, fishermen would be more likely to agree with a protocol that
spells out their role in drawing the boundaries and locations of areas being
proposed to be set aside for research. At a minimum the Massachusetts
Fisheries Commission should retain the authority to formalize such decisions
regarding fishing, but the process to develop such recommendations must be
more inclusive of the fishing community at the grass-roots level. The amount
of time needed to conduct the research, the specific goals of such research,
and how the research findings are expected to benefit the fishery must be
articulated beforehand in a public process that develops such
recommendations. Social and economic impacts of such decisions must be
adequately analyzed and considered through collaborative research
methodologies before such decisions can be made.
The MFP will continue its study of this particular recommendation and is
available to discuss this in more detail as the Task Force continues its
work, but we cannot support the recommendation as currently presented in the
draft.
Recommendation s #10 & #13:
The MFP supports the goal of Recommendation 13 to establish an “advisory
group of marine and fishery scientists … to evaluate and determine baseline
living marine resource population levels, habitat conditions and contaminant
levels to determine a reasonable measure of environmental quality,
appropriate management goals and actual changes in ocean resources through
time.”
The advisory group must include commercial and recreational fishermen with
strong ties to fisheries and marine life in all areas of the state. Fishermen
poses crucial information that scientists need in order to obtain historic
information and augment current information to evaluate and determine
baseline living marine resource population levels, habitat conditions, and
study trends in these resources relative to the baseline. Fishermen will
contribute information that will help prioritize research needs and focus
critical questions that is needed to form a comprehensive ocean resources
monitoring and research plan.
Furthermore, the work of this advisory group and research plan should
include the examination of both social and economic factors relative to
fisheries and marine ecosystems. Economic data can be easily misinterpreted
in the absence of qualifying social information to provide a depth of
understanding relative to the numbers and economic factors. Economic factors
by themselves often mask very important community impacts and needs.
Recommendation #4 & Additional Comments on Permit Requirements
As the MFP has commented previously, Recommendation #4 should add that
the Division of Marine Fisheries and Coastal Zone Management be given a vote
in whatever forum will make permitting decisions regarding projects and
developments in the marine environment or coastal zone that have the
potential of impacting fishery habitats or fishery productivity.
The MFP further recommends that the OMTF consider proposing that standard
procedure for this permitting process include establishment of an ongoing
monitoring function or oversight committee for projects. This committee would
be able to recommend modifications to permit requirements based on lessons
learned through the course of project implementation, provided that the
project proponents are also in agreement to such amendments to permit
requirements. This monitoring or steering committee should include fishing
community representation as well as relevant agencies and the entities
developing or managing projects.
The current status of the Salem to Weymouth natural gas hub line is a case
in point as to why this suggestion is useful. The permit for this project
called for the pipe to be buried beneath rock, which would then be leveled to
within one foot of the original bottom contour. Since the rock has been
placed over the pipeline, spawning lobsters have moved into the new rock
habitat that has been created. As a result valuable spawning lobster will be
destroyed when the permit requirement to plow the rock formation level to the
bottom is undertaken. While the company is agreeable to forego this
requirement in the permit and the lobster industry also agrees, there is no
legal mechanism to allow this flexibility in the permit process. It would be
very important, however, for any committee established with this type of role
to include input from fishermen of different gear sectors or ensure that the
fishing community representative on the committee be capable of representing
the perspectives of different sectors of the fishery in the decision-making
process.
Conclusions
The MFP wishes to thank the OMTF for its diligence in meeting the
challenge of providing useful recommendations for improving management of our
oceans resources. Nevertheless, we feel a cautionary note needs to be made
about the swiftness of this process. Proposing a comprehensive reform for how
we manage oceans resources in such a short period of time inadvertently will
leave some constituents out of the loop or with insufficient time to review
and process the proposals. The result of the short period of time allowed for
the OMTF to do its work may result in good ideas that have not been
sufficiently vetted and expressed with enough sensitivity to gain full public
support. Such an outcome of this opportunity would be most unfortunate.
We do not have a suggestion on how the OMTF can manage this problem apart
from saying that more time is needed for this process to be as fruitful as it
could be. More time is needed for the public to review proposals and
participate in the process.
Thank you for the opportunity of participating in this process. The
Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP) looks forward to working with the
OMTF and those who will be responsible to follow up on OMTF recommendations.
Respectfully,
David Bergeron,
Executive Director
Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership
# # #
|
