|
April 25, 2006
David Bergeron
Executive Director
Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, Inc.
Testimony Before the Committee on Resources United States House of
Representatives
Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act April 25, 2006
My name is David Bergeron. I am Executive Director of the Massachusetts
Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP). The MFP is an umbrella organization for 18
commercial fishing organizations representing all gear and geographic sectors
of the Massachusetts fishing industry. Our members are:
Boston Harbor Lobstermen’s Cooperative
Cape Cod Commercial Hook
Fishermen’s Association
Commercial Anglers’ Association
General Category Tuna
Association
Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association
Gloucester Fishermen's
Association
Marshfield Commercial Fishermen's Association
Massachusetts
Commercial Fishermen's Association
Massachusetts Bay Ground Fishermen's
Association
Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association
New Bedford Seafood
Coalition
New England Fish Exchange
Northeast Seafood Coalition
North Shore
Community Tuna Association
Pigeon Cove Fishermen’s Co-Op
Plymouth
Lobstermen's Association
Provincetown Fishermen’s Association
South Shore
Lobstermen’s Association
The MFP was created to promote the common interests and economic viability
of commercial fishermen and fishing families. The MFP is sponsor of the
Fishing Partnership Health Plan, which provides comprehensive healthcare
coverage for more than 2000 members in the fishing community. The MFP also
runs a successful collaborative research program that addresses topics that
include social science inquiries, seafloor mapping and habitat
characterization, species studies and selective gear development.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony concerning
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and particularly H.R. 5018 and
H.R. 4940. There are many provisions in both bills that deserve serious
consideration and which we hope will be included in the final version of
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. H.R.5018 includes several
proposals that we support with regard to diminished fisheries, flexibility in
rebuilding timeframes, analysis of cumulative social and economic impacts,
reconciliation of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other matters discussed below. H.R.4940 also
includes some very important proposals concerning healthcare for fishermen,
safety, flexibility of rebuilding strategies and timeframes, and
collaborative research.
It is wise that the House of Representatives and Congress is moving
towards reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act this year. Medical
research continues to affirm the importance of seafood in a healthful diet.
While recreational fishing provides important economic and social benefits,
it is the commercial fisherman who provides high quality and healthful
protein for all American citizens. It is critical that the health and
abundance of our fishery resources be safeguarded. It is equally important
that the tens of thousands of men and women who go to sea and the people
employed in the businesses and industries on shore that support our fishermen
are recognized and supported for what they contribute to the national
interest. These are the people who provide us with some of our best
understanding of the marine environment and the rich abundance of the sea.
Healthcare for Fishing Communities
The MFP has a long-standing interest in fishing community healthcare
issues and is sponsor of the Fishing Partnership Health Plan which provides
more than 2,000 fishing family members with comprehensive high-quality
coverage. Our work in connection with the Fishing Partnership Health Plan
gives us a unique view into the social dimensions of fishing community life.
As such, we wholeheartedly endorse Section 4(e) of H.R.4940 “Fishing Industry
Health Care Coverage Demonstration Program” and request that this entire
section be included in the final version of Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization.
Very closely related to our interest in fishermen’s health is our concern
for fishermen’s safety. We support Section 6 of H.R.4940 “Fishing Safety” and
especially endorse its provisions to provide resources for safety training
and its requirement that equal emphasis be given in management to fishermen’s
safety at sea as is given to other National Standards. A NOAA funded project
we are currently conducting seeks to promote a culture of safety at sea by
building on successful safety training workshops in New Bedford and exploring
the potential for developing incentives such as lowering the costs of safety
equipment and/or insurance in part through active participation in safety
training.
Collaborative Research
The MFP operates a successful collaborative research program that
addresses a number of research topics relevant to the development and
definition of ecosystem based approaches to management. We generally support
H.R. 5018’s Section 6 “Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management”; however, there
needs to be more specific language to describe how to “incorporate broad
stake holder participation.” H.R.4940 provides concrete examples of how this
may be accomplished in Section 5 “Improvements in Fishery Science and
Research” and Section 12 “Fishery Science Education Program.”
The MFP has developed a special expertise with regard to social science
research through a number of collaborative research projects with researchers
from MIT, Rutgers University, and Harvard University. We began this work five
years ago with the specific goal of preparing to make recommendations to
Congress to improve the quality and usefulness of fisheries social science
research. One of our most critical findings is that social science analyses
in fisheries must not be limited to impacts of regulations but must be
expanded to assess the social dimensions of the science and management
processes as well.
A. Analyzing the Social Dimensions to Science & Management
Effective management of fisheries demands institutionalized collaboration
among fishermen, other community members, social and natural scientists as
well as managers at every point, from research through decision-making.
In its introductory “findings,” the Magnuson-Stevens Act stresses that
“the collection of reliable data is essential to the effective conservation,
management, and scientific understanding of the fishery resources of the
United States.” The route chosen was “(5) to establish Regional Fishery
Management Councils to exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery
resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revision of such plans
under circumstances (A) which will enable the States, the fishing industry,
consumer and environmental organizations, and other interested persons to
participate in, and advise on, the establishment and administration of such
plans, and (B) which take into account the social and economic needs of the
States.” Despite these participatory goals, fisheries management has achieved
the reputation of “top-down” management among many of its stakeholders.
Others, however, accuse the Councils of being swayed by too much
participation of stakeholders. Measurement and monitoring of the involvement
and empowerment of both individuals and organizations could be incorporated
into the analysis of the success/failure of management.
The description of the social organization and characteristics of
interaction among research and fisheries management institutions and the
people who participate through them could be viewed as important social
"indicators" in management. Effective outcomes would be defined and monitored
by measurable social indicators. That there are fishermen and scientists
working together on projects does not mean that the full potential of that
collaboration is being realized. Deliberate analysis of the human ecology of
collaborative fisheries research is an important step towards understanding
what is necessary for success in such research. Meaningful collaboration
among scientists and fishermen and their respective organizations is an
important contributor to the development of individual and group
“capabilities” and expertise and thus provides the social and human capital
necessary for effective research and management of ecosystems.
Section 5(d), (e) and (f) of H.R.4940 provides the best model on how to
build upon progress already made in promoting collaborative research and also
includes resources for social science collaborative research that would be
available to analyze the process and social structure of successful
collaborative research and how it can be made more applicable and influential
to management.
B. Community Confidence in Scientific Research
Our social science research and experience in general with collaborative
research projects is beginning to awaken an appreciation of the need to
better understand the meaning and social indicators of “collaboration” in
connection with scientific research. There is broad recognition of the need
for scientists and fishermen to work more closely together through
collaborative research, and Congress has invested in this idea. Social
sciences need to be applied to learn how to assess and analyze scientific
research that produces results that obtain high levels of confidence and as
such become implemented more readily in management.
The major complaint we hear is that collaborative research results are not
used in management. The reasons for this may not be as obvious as some may
believe. It is not simply a question as to whether or not the science is
good, the review was independent, or the information was relevant. There is
more to it, and we need to understand it.
Research done by the Ecosystem Management Initiative of the University of
Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment examined the need for
collaboration for effective ecosystem management. The group has also focused
on “what enables people to work together to address resource issues, resolve
conflicts, and build partnerships.” (www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/lessons/index.htm)
The accuracy of natural science research and monitoring results (e.g.,
fisheries assessments) performed without collaboration is consistently
questioned by fishing industry participants. While collaborative projects do
not always end with consensus among the collaborators, those who participate
in these projects have opportunities to share information and educate each
other. Research conducted at the University of New Hampshire has found that
collaborative research projects have fostered a greater appreciation among
both fishermen and scientists for each other and the knowledge each
possesses, as well as the information gained over the course of the projects.
A symposium at the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting in Anchorage,
Alaska (September 2005), “Partnerships for a Common Purpose: Cooperative
Fisheries Research and Management”, pointed out that “it may be easier to
address ecosystem-based management priorities with cooperative research
because of the diverse skills of the many individuals involved and the varied
perspectives provided by the many stakeholders included in the process.”
(Fisheries, 31:3:132 (March 2006)
C. Cumulative Social & Economic Impacts
In working with fishing community participants through our social science
collaborative research, we have learned that the social science needs of
fishing communities are not well served by the conventional ways of thinking
about socio-economic impacts. Socio-economic impacts of future actions are
difficult to measure, but data can be collected and used to scientifically
measure the impacts of past management. Current law does not require such an
historic perspective. Our research has found this lack of historic
perspective to be a serious problem that was noted by every fishing community
we studied across the region. These effects have been well documented in our
reports linked from our website, http://www.mass-fish.org/communit.htm.
Section 10 of H.R. 5018 remedies this problem by calling for the analysis of
the cumulative social and economic impacts of regulations on communities.
Analysis of the cumulative impacts of past regulations on communities over
time will greatly improve the Councils’ abilities to estimate the impacts of
options for future actions under consideration. This will also greatly
improve the Councils’ abilities to be more equitable in their
decision-making.
D. Fishing Industry Infrastructures
Another largely unmet need in fishing communities is the inventory and
social science analysis of fishing industry infrastructures and businesses.
This information is not only needed to assist Fishery Councils in their
decision-making but it is also badly needed by local and state governments
and planning agencies in making zoning decisions and economic development
plans. Lacking good social and economic information about the fishing
business and industry infrastructures places communities at a tremendous
disadvantage when it comes time to gauge impacts and to plan for change. This
in turn contributes to fear and concerns that make it more difficult for
stakeholders to cope and participate in the political process. The MFP has
found that it is effective to combine socio-economic analysis of fisheries
regulations with helping communities like Gloucester better understand their
waterfronts and how to make important long-term plans for their ports.
The City of New Bedford, for example, is preparing to develop a new harbor
plan and would greatly benefit from a thorough inventory and detailed
analysis of its fishing industry physical, business, and services
infrastructures. The funding specifically set aside in H.R. 5018’s Section
4(d) for socio-economic data collection activities is very important and the
use of these funds should consider how to better understand cumulative
impacts of fisheries regulations as well as the fishing industry’s physical,
business, and essential services infrastructures.
It would be far preferable, however, to provide this funding for social
science data collection to independent research institutions separate from
the Councils and NOAA Fisheries. Social research conducted separately from
the Councils will gain quicker confidence and cooperation from fishing
community participants who will be more willing to share confidential
information and collaborate with independent social scientists.
Diminished Fisheries & Rebuilding Flexibility (from oral remarks to the
committee)
The Councils and the agency need a reasonable amount of discretion to be
able to do their jobs properly.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Councils to have discretion in the
amount of time allowed to rebuild fish stocks when targets are doubled.
Likewise, in cases where stocks are expected to reach their targets within
the permitted time period, Councils should be able to phase out overfishing
gradually rather than to end it immediately when ending it immediately would
cause tremendous unemployment. We ask, why is it necessary to devastate
communities when the only thing gained is quicker rebuilding? Likewise, why
is it necessary to devastate communities when causes of diminished fisheries
are beyond the jurisdiction of the Councils?
Science & Statistical Committees
The science and statistical committees must be transparent in how they
operate. Moreover, the science and statistical committees would garner
greater community confidence if membership included independent experts who
are not officials or employees of the Federal Government. Confidence would
also greatly increase if information from collaborative research were
utilized that has been conducted by high quality collaborations that could be
verified through social science assessments of the research process.
Independent Peer Review
Independent peer review of scientific information being employed in
management is another way to increase confidence in the process. Reviewers
need to be truly independent. Section 5(c) of H.R.4940 provides the best
language to ensure transparency by specifying that reviewers are not all
employees of the Federal Government.
Qualified experts who are truly independent of NOAA to participate on the
science and statistical committees and the independent peer review panels
will be difficult to find. To help address this shortage, it is necessary for
some funding for fisheries and ocean research and education to be
appropriated separately from NOAA Fisheries.
Review of Fishery Regulations in National Marine Sanctuaries
Section 10(d) of H.R.5018 addresses a very sensitive ambiguity in current
law concerning the authority of National Marine Sanctuaries Act provisions
that permit the regulation of fisheries within the boundaries of national
marine sanctuaries by the National Marine Sanctuaries Program rather than
NOAA Fisheries and the Fishery Management Councils. This ambiguity has caused
a significant amount of confusion in New England.
Some assert that the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary must be
managed to a higher standard than that which is provided for in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act sets a goal of
protecting resources while the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes a different
goal of achieving sustainable fisheries. H.R.5018 clarifies this issue by
plainly stating that any proposed regulation under the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act concerning fish or fish habitat “shall not take effect unless
the Secretary certifies that the proposed regulation – (A) meets the national
standards under section 301(a); and (B) is consistent with other provisions
of this Act.” This language makes it clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act goal
of achieving sustainable fisheries is the goal that applies to any fisheries
management actions by any agency in a national marine sanctuary. This is an
improvement over current law that contains the apparent conflict of goals
between the two statutes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
David Bergeron
|
