for EBFM? - nefmc
Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management: Perspectives of fishery management councils and stakeholders in New England and the Mid-Atlantic
Ingrid Biedron NEFMC EBFM Oversight Committee Meeting July 31, 2014
Research Objectives • Evaluate perspectives and the degree of understanding between Council decision makers and stakeholders about EBFM. • Identify factors influencing the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils’ adoption of EBFM.
Content of Presentation • This study identifies perspectives from a representative selection of New England and Mid-Atlantic fishery management council stakeholders about the transition to EBFM, including: – How to define EBFM – How to practice EBFM – Preferred time lines for transition to EBFM – Potential barriers to EBFM – Social science needs to implement EBFM – Recommendations for implementing EBFM
Project Summary •
Research Objective #1: Evaluate the degree of understanding between Council decision makers and stakeholders about EBFM. – High level of understanding about EBFM between Council members and stakeholders in both the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions • Council members and stakeholders define EBFM as a holistic approach to management and desire a gradual transition to EBFM
•
Research Objective #2: Identify factors influencing the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils’ adoption of EBFM – Time line: • Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM – Barriers: • Concern that profits from fisheries will decrease due to EBFM • Lack of science, data, and modelling capability • Lack of funding • EBFM is constrained by Magnuson • Need socioeconomic information (Social, economic, and cultural impacts of EBFM) – Recommendations: • Define EBFM • Identify EBFM objectives • Implement a specific plan and time line for EBFM
Conceptual Theories: Coorientation Model •
Coorientation Model: A social science theory that measures agreement (if 2 parties share the same ideas) and calculates accuracy (how well one group can predict views of other group) – Agreement • Do Council members and stakeholders respond differently to survey questions? – Accuracy • Do Council members correctly predict how stakeholders will respond to survey questions?
(Chafee & McLeod, 1968; N. A. Connelly & Knuth, 2002; Leong et al., 2008)
Conceptual Theories: Coorientation Model Council Attitudes
Council Perception of Stakeholder Attitudes
Stakeholder Attitudes (Commercial & Recreational Fishermen and NGO Leaders)
Council Perception of SSC Attitudes
Scientific & Statistical Committee (SSC) Member Attitudes
The figure represents how agreement and accuracy were measured between Council members and stakeholders.
(Chafee & McLeod, 1968; N. A. Connelly & Knuth, 2002; Leong et al., 2008)
Methods: Mail Surveys • 5600 surveys distributed to Council decision makers and stakeholders across the MA and NE regions: • Council members • Council staff members • Scientific and Statistical Committee members • Commercial fishermen • Recreational anglers • Nongovernmental organization leaders • Received over 1,000 survey responses • 2-3 follow-ups to non-respondents • Phone interviews for nonrespondent bias.
Methods: Meeting Observations • Attended 33 Council meetings: April 2011 - December 2013 – 17 MAFMC meetings – 16 NEFMC meetings
Methods: Interviews • Interviewees –Council members –Scientific and Statistical Committee members –Council staff members • Total interviews completed: 66
Key Interview & Survey Questions • How do you define EBFM? • What practices do you think should be included in EBFM? • What are your preferred outcomes (time lines) for EBFM? • What are the potential barriers to EBFM? • What are the social science needs for EBFM? • What are your recommendations for transitioning from single species fisheries management to EBFM?
Survey Questions: Example
Asked of Council members and stakeholders • How significant do YOU think each of the following is as a potential barrier to implementing EBFM?
Survey Questions: Example
Asked of Council, Staff, and SSC members only • How significant do YOU think commercial fishermen* think each of the following is as a potential barrier to implementing EBFM?
* Or recreational fishermen, SSC members, or NGO leaders
Results: Coorientation Model • Generally, High Agreement and High Accuracy – Between Council members and stakeholders – In both the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions – For most survey questions about EBFM
Results: Survey Response Template Survey Responses ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
4.00
3.50
Lower Agreement; High Accuracy
High Agreement; High Accuracy
Lower Agreement; Lower Accuracy
High Agreement; Lower Accuracy
3.00
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement )
4.00
How do you define EBFM?
ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Definition of EBFM
New England Survey Responses: Definition of EBFM 4.00
4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
3.50
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers
3.00
MA Council members and 3.00 MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.50
MA Council members and MA non-governmental organization leaders
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen 3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members NE Council members and NE non-governmental organization leaders
2.50
2.00
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What practices do you think should be included in EBFM? ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Practices 4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
3.50
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers
3.00
New England Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Practices 4.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
3.00
2.50
MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.00
MA Council members and MA non-governmental organization leaders 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.50
NE Council members and NE non-governmental organization leaders
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What are your preferred outcomes (time lines) for EBFM? ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Outcomes
New England Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Outcomes
4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
4.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
3.50
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers
3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
3.00
3.00 MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members 2.50 MA Council members and MA nongovernmental 2.00 organization leaders
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members NE Council members and NE nongovernmental organization leaders
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What are the potential barriers to EBFM?
ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Barriers to Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management
New England Survey Responses: Barriers to Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management 4.00
4.00 MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen 3.50
3.50
3.00
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers 3.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members
MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee 2.50 members
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
MA Council members and MA non2.00 governmental 2.00 organization leaders
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
NE Council members and NE non-governmental organization leaders 2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What are the social science needs for EBFM?
ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Social Science Needs 4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
3.50
New England Survey Responses: Social Science Needs 4.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers 3.00
3.00
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.50
MA Council members and MA non-governmental organization leaders
2.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members NE Council members and NE nongovernmental organization leaders
How do you define EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members Strongly Agreed or Agreed that the definition of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management should include the concepts listed. Considering the interactions between the physical, biological, and human factors that affect the health of fisheries Considering many ecological factors Monitoring and enforcing EBFM Assessing the social, economic, and cultural impacts on industries and communities that depend on fisheries Adapting to changing biological and social conditions Incorporating geographically-specific management needs Including flexibility into management strategies Protecting and/or enhancing habitat Engaging stakeholders Accounting for uncertainty in ecosystems Addressing human needs, including those of fishermen and fishing communities
What practices do you think should be included in EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members responded that it was Extremely important, Very important or Moderately important that the following practices be implemented as part of fisheries management by the Mid-Atlantic and/or New England Fishery Management Council over the next 10 years. Identifying and prioritizing the key biological, physical, social, and economic factors that should drive decisions Continuing inclusion of stakeholders on the MAFMC/NEFMC Advisory Panel for ecosystembased fisheries management Establishing a specific operational plan for incorporating ecosystem considerations into MAFMC/NEFMC decision making Rewriting the MAFMC/NEFMC management requirements, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to explicitly incorporate EBFM principles Incorporating the EBFM approach into MAFMC/NEFMC priorities Integrating social, economic, and community impact analyses into the MAFMC/NEFMC decision making processes
What are your preferred outcomes (time lines) for EBFM? RANK OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES (from most supported to least supported) 1. Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM 2. An intermediate change from single species fisheries management to EBFM 3. A complete, gradual (5-10 years) transition from single species fisheries management to EBFM 4. Continuation of single species fisheries management 5. A complete, immediate change (0-4 years) from single species fisheries management to EBFM
What are the potential barriers to EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members think that each of the following is a Moderate or Significant barrier to implementing EBFM. Concern that if EBFM is implemented, then the profits for fishermen and the fisheries industry will be less than they are now under current management Lack of science to support EBFM plans Lack of funding There are so many variables that must be considered Lack of definitive, achievable action plan for EBFM Council structure is currently organized to deal with individual fishery management plans Lack of reliable fish population models based on ecosystem-based principles Lack of political support Concern about lower fishing quotas Insufficient scientific data to support the transition to EBFM Concern that if EBFM is implemented, then the level of uncertainty in fish population assessments will be greater than it is now under current management Concern that if EBFM is implemented, then fishing quotas for individual managed species will be less than they are now under current management
What are the potential barriers to EBFM? The top 10 potential barriers to ecosystem-based fisheries management in rank by the number of interviewees who mentioned them at least once. Rank 1 2
Barriers Lack of science, data, and modelling capability EBFM is constrained by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; EBFM is not legally mandated
3
Need socioeconomic information
4
Lack of funding for EBFM
5
Governance
6
Lack of goals and an implementation plan for EBFM
7
Lack of stakeholder engagement
8
Reluctance to change
9
Lack of universally accepted definition of EBFM
10
Lack of stakeholder buy-in
Top ten potential barriers to EBFM mentioned during interviews, ranked, from highest to lowest, by the % of total interviewees (N=66) who mentioned the barrier at least once.
BARRIERS
% of TOTAL interviewees who mentioned barrier
# of interviews in which barrier was mentioned at # (%) of total MA # (%) of total MA Staff least once Council members members
# (%) of total Council SSC members
MA
# (%) of total NE # (%) of total NE # (%) of total NE Council SSC Council members Staff members members
Lack of science, data, and modelling capability
72%
50
18 (75%)
6 (100%)
4 (80%)
13 (59%)
6 (86%)
3 (60%)
EBFM is constrained by Magnuson; not legally mandated
64%
44
14 (%58)
3 (50%)
1 (20%)
16 (73%)
5 (71%)
5 (100%)
Need socioeconomic information
62%
43
15 (63%)
6 (100%)
2 (40%)
11 (50%)
6 (86%)
3 (60%)
Lack of funding for EBFM 42%
14 (%58) 8 (33%)
4 (67%) 3 (50%)
0 (0%) 4 (80%)
8 (36%) 8 (36%)
2 (29%) 4 (57%)
1 (20%) 1 (20%)
Governance
41%
29 28
Lack of goals and an implementation plan for EBFM
41%
28
6 (25%)
3 (50%)
1 (20%)
11 (50%)
4 (57%)
3 (60%)
Lack of stakeholder engagement
32%
22
6 (25%)
4 (67%)
2 (40%)
7 (32%)
3 (43%)
0 (0%)
Reluctance to change
32%
22
8 (33%)
1 (17%)
1 (20%)
10 (45%)
1 (14%)
1 (20%)
Lack of universally accepted definition of EBFM
30%
21
9 (38%)
4 (67%)
0 (0%)
6 (27%)
2 (29%)
0 (0%)
Lack of stakeholder buyin
29%
20
5 (21%)
1 (17%)
3 (60%)
7 (32%)
3 (43%)
1 (20%)
What are the social science needs for EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members think that each of the following is a Very important or Moderately important social science need to support fisheries management decisions Social, economic, and cultural impact of fisheries management on coastal communities Economic impact of fisheries management on the commercial and recreational fishing industries, including revenue and job availability Willingness of commercial fishermen to modify fishing practices Improved understanding of how the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act supports ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) practices Predicted regulation and quota changes to commercial fisheries under EBFM Anticipated future political support for EBFM Anticipated future state and federal funding to support EBFM Consumer support and market demand for sustainable seafood Willingness of recreational fishermen to modify fishing practices
What are your recommendations for transitioning to EBFM? The top 10 recommendations for transitioning to ecosystem-based fisheries management (in rank by number of interviewees who mentioned them at least once. Rank Recommendations Define EBFM, identify objectives, and determine specific plan and time line for 1 implementation 2 Transition to EBFM incrementally Implement EBFM on an experimental or pilot study scale, observe outcomes, and adapt 3 management as necessary 4 Develop buy-in with all stakeholders about EBFM 5 Practice EBFM based on spatial management (ecosystem production units) The fishery management councils and leaders should look to the SSC and the science 6 center for science and models that would support EBFM 7 Consider removals based on a biomass cap 8 9 10
Increase understanding of ecosystems to prepare for long-term ecosystem changes Practice EBFM as supported by some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act National Standards Evaluate tradeoffs of EBFM plans
Top ten recommendations for EBFM mentioned during interviews, ranked, from highest to lowest, by the % of total interviewees (N=66) who mentioned the recommendation at least once.
RECOMMENDATIONS
% of TOTAL interviewees who mentioned recommendation
# of interviews in which recommendation was mentioned at # (%) of total MA least once Council members
# (%) of total MA Staff members
# (%) of total MA # (%) of total NE Council SSC members Council members
# (%) of total NE Staff members
# (%) of total NE Council SSC members
Define EBFM, identify objectives, and determine specific plan and time line for implementation
38%
26
9 (38%)
1 (17%)
1 (20%)
9 (41%)
4 (57%)
2 (40%)
Transition to EBFM incrementally
23%
16
5 (21%)
2 (33%)
1 (20%)
5 (23%)
1 (14%)
2 (40%)
Implement EBFM on an experimental scale
17%
12
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
6 (27%)
1 (14%)
2 (40%)
Councils should look to the SSC and the science center for science and models that would support EBFM
16%
11
4 (17%)
1 (17%)
3 (60%)
2 (9%)
1 (14%)
0 (0%)
Develop buy-in with stakeholders about EBFM
16%
11
1 (4%)
1 (17%)
2 (40%)
4 (18%)
2 (29%)
1 (20%)
Practice EBFM based on spatial management
16%
11
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (14%)
4 (57%)
2 (40%)
Consider removals based on a biomass cap
14%
10
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
2 (40%)
3 (14%)
2 (29%)
2 (40%)
Increase understanding of ecosystems
13%
9
4 (17%)
1 (17%)
2 (40%)
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Practice EBFM as supported by the National Standards
12%
8
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
1 (5%)
3 (43%)
2 (40%)
Evaluate tradeoffs of EBFM plans
10%
7
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
2 (29%)
2 (40%)
Project Summary •
Research Objective #1: Evaluate the degree of understanding between Council decision makers and stakeholders about EBFM. – High level of understanding about EBFM between Council members and stakeholders in both the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions • Council members and stakeholders define EBFM as a holistic approach to management and desire a gradual transition to EBFM
•
Research Objective #2: Identify factors influencing the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils’ adoption of EBFM – Time line: • Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM – Barriers: • Concern that profits from fisheries will decrease due to EBFM • Lack of science, data, and modelling capability • Lack of funding • EBFM is constrained by Magnuson • Need socioeconomic information (Social, economic, and cultural impacts of EBFM) – Recommendations: • Define EBFM • Identify EBFM objectives • Implement a specific plan and time line for EBFM
Management implications for EBFM • Most common Council member and stakeholder perspectives in New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions: – Preferred Time line: • Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM – Perceived Barriers: • Concern that profits from fisheries will decrease due to EBFM • Lack of science, data, and modelling capability • Lack of funding • EBFM is constrained by Magnuson • Need socioeconomic information (Social, economic, and cultural impacts of EBFM) – Recommendations: • Define EBFM • Identify EBFM objectives • Implement a specific plan and time line for EBFM
Funding Sources • Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station • JP Morgan Liebmann Fellowship Fund
Thank you
Appendices
Results: Survey response rates SURVEY RECIPIENT GROUP Members of both Councils New England Council decision makers Mid-Atlantic Council decision makers
#RETURNS #SENT %RESPONSE RATE 10 10 100% 27
59
46%
35
61
57%
New England NGO Leaders 39
78
50%
Mid-Atlantic NGO Leaders New England Commercial Fishermen Mid-Atlantic Commercial Fishermen New England Recreational Anglers Mid-Atlantic Recreational Anglers
16
56
29%
238
1333
18%
279
1333
21%
190
1333
14%
232
1333
17%
Survey response rates to decision maker and stakeholder surveys distributed to recipients in the NE and MA regions.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act •
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act now contains 10 National Standards for fishery conservation and management, with which all Fishery Management Plans must comply.
•
National Standards: – – – – – – – – – –
Prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield. Be based upon the best scientific information available. Manage individual stocks as a unit throughout their range, to the extent practicable; interrelated stocks shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. Not discriminate between residents of different states; any allocation of privileges must be fair and equitable. Where practicable, promote efficiency, except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. Take into account and allow for variations among and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. Minimize costs and avoid duplications, where practicable. Take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities to provide for the sustained participation of, and minimize adverse impacts to, such communities (consistent with conservation requirements). Minimize bycatch or mortality from bycatch. Promote safety of human life at sea
http://www.mafmc.org
Ingrid Biedron NEFMC EBFM Oversight Committee Meeting July 31, 2014
Research Objectives • Evaluate perspectives and the degree of understanding between Council decision makers and stakeholders about EBFM. • Identify factors influencing the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils’ adoption of EBFM.
Content of Presentation • This study identifies perspectives from a representative selection of New England and Mid-Atlantic fishery management council stakeholders about the transition to EBFM, including: – How to define EBFM – How to practice EBFM – Preferred time lines for transition to EBFM – Potential barriers to EBFM – Social science needs to implement EBFM – Recommendations for implementing EBFM
Project Summary •
Research Objective #1: Evaluate the degree of understanding between Council decision makers and stakeholders about EBFM. – High level of understanding about EBFM between Council members and stakeholders in both the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions • Council members and stakeholders define EBFM as a holistic approach to management and desire a gradual transition to EBFM
•
Research Objective #2: Identify factors influencing the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils’ adoption of EBFM – Time line: • Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM – Barriers: • Concern that profits from fisheries will decrease due to EBFM • Lack of science, data, and modelling capability • Lack of funding • EBFM is constrained by Magnuson • Need socioeconomic information (Social, economic, and cultural impacts of EBFM) – Recommendations: • Define EBFM • Identify EBFM objectives • Implement a specific plan and time line for EBFM
Conceptual Theories: Coorientation Model •
Coorientation Model: A social science theory that measures agreement (if 2 parties share the same ideas) and calculates accuracy (how well one group can predict views of other group) – Agreement • Do Council members and stakeholders respond differently to survey questions? – Accuracy • Do Council members correctly predict how stakeholders will respond to survey questions?
(Chafee & McLeod, 1968; N. A. Connelly & Knuth, 2002; Leong et al., 2008)
Conceptual Theories: Coorientation Model Council Attitudes
Council Perception of Stakeholder Attitudes
Stakeholder Attitudes (Commercial & Recreational Fishermen and NGO Leaders)
Council Perception of SSC Attitudes
Scientific & Statistical Committee (SSC) Member Attitudes
The figure represents how agreement and accuracy were measured between Council members and stakeholders.
(Chafee & McLeod, 1968; N. A. Connelly & Knuth, 2002; Leong et al., 2008)
Methods: Mail Surveys • 5600 surveys distributed to Council decision makers and stakeholders across the MA and NE regions: • Council members • Council staff members • Scientific and Statistical Committee members • Commercial fishermen • Recreational anglers • Nongovernmental organization leaders • Received over 1,000 survey responses • 2-3 follow-ups to non-respondents • Phone interviews for nonrespondent bias.
Methods: Meeting Observations • Attended 33 Council meetings: April 2011 - December 2013 – 17 MAFMC meetings – 16 NEFMC meetings
Methods: Interviews • Interviewees –Council members –Scientific and Statistical Committee members –Council staff members • Total interviews completed: 66
Key Interview & Survey Questions • How do you define EBFM? • What practices do you think should be included in EBFM? • What are your preferred outcomes (time lines) for EBFM? • What are the potential barriers to EBFM? • What are the social science needs for EBFM? • What are your recommendations for transitioning from single species fisheries management to EBFM?
Survey Questions: Example
Asked of Council members and stakeholders • How significant do YOU think each of the following is as a potential barrier to implementing EBFM?
Survey Questions: Example
Asked of Council, Staff, and SSC members only • How significant do YOU think commercial fishermen* think each of the following is as a potential barrier to implementing EBFM?
* Or recreational fishermen, SSC members, or NGO leaders
Results: Coorientation Model • Generally, High Agreement and High Accuracy – Between Council members and stakeholders – In both the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions – For most survey questions about EBFM
Results: Survey Response Template Survey Responses ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
4.00
3.50
Lower Agreement; High Accuracy
High Agreement; High Accuracy
Lower Agreement; Lower Accuracy
High Agreement; Lower Accuracy
3.00
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement )
4.00
How do you define EBFM?
ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Definition of EBFM
New England Survey Responses: Definition of EBFM 4.00
4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
3.50
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers
3.00
MA Council members and 3.00 MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.50
MA Council members and MA non-governmental organization leaders
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen 3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members NE Council members and NE non-governmental organization leaders
2.50
2.00
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What practices do you think should be included in EBFM? ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Practices 4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
3.50
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers
3.00
New England Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Practices 4.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
3.00
2.50
MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.00
MA Council members and MA non-governmental organization leaders 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.50
NE Council members and NE non-governmental organization leaders
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What are your preferred outcomes (time lines) for EBFM? ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Outcomes
New England Survey Responses: Fisheries Management Outcomes
4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
4.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
3.50
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers
3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
3.00
3.00 MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members 2.50 MA Council members and MA nongovernmental 2.00 organization leaders
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members NE Council members and NE nongovernmental organization leaders
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What are the potential barriers to EBFM?
ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Barriers to Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management
New England Survey Responses: Barriers to Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management 4.00
4.00 MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen 3.50
3.50
3.00
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers 3.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members
MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee 2.50 members
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
MA Council members and MA non2.00 governmental 2.00 organization leaders
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
NE Council members and NE non-governmental organization leaders 2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
What are the social science needs for EBFM?
ACCURACY LEVEL (0 = Lowest Accuracy; 4 = Highest Accuracy)
Mid-Atlantic Survey Responses: Social Science Needs 4.00
MA Council members and MA commercial fishermen
3.50
New England Survey Responses: Social Science Needs 4.00
NE Council members and NE commercial fishermen
3.50
NE Council members and NE recreational anglers
MA Council members and MA recreational anglers 3.00
3.00
2.50
2.00 2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
MA Council members and MA Scientific and Statistical Committee members
2.50
MA Council members and MA non-governmental organization leaders
2.00
AGREEMENT LEVEL (0 = Lowest Agreement; 4 = Highest Agreement)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
NE Council members and NE Scientific and Statistical Committee members NE Council members and NE nongovernmental organization leaders
How do you define EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members Strongly Agreed or Agreed that the definition of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management should include the concepts listed. Considering the interactions between the physical, biological, and human factors that affect the health of fisheries Considering many ecological factors Monitoring and enforcing EBFM Assessing the social, economic, and cultural impacts on industries and communities that depend on fisheries Adapting to changing biological and social conditions Incorporating geographically-specific management needs Including flexibility into management strategies Protecting and/or enhancing habitat Engaging stakeholders Accounting for uncertainty in ecosystems Addressing human needs, including those of fishermen and fishing communities
What practices do you think should be included in EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members responded that it was Extremely important, Very important or Moderately important that the following practices be implemented as part of fisheries management by the Mid-Atlantic and/or New England Fishery Management Council over the next 10 years. Identifying and prioritizing the key biological, physical, social, and economic factors that should drive decisions Continuing inclusion of stakeholders on the MAFMC/NEFMC Advisory Panel for ecosystembased fisheries management Establishing a specific operational plan for incorporating ecosystem considerations into MAFMC/NEFMC decision making Rewriting the MAFMC/NEFMC management requirements, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to explicitly incorporate EBFM principles Incorporating the EBFM approach into MAFMC/NEFMC priorities Integrating social, economic, and community impact analyses into the MAFMC/NEFMC decision making processes
What are your preferred outcomes (time lines) for EBFM? RANK OF STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES (from most supported to least supported) 1. Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM 2. An intermediate change from single species fisheries management to EBFM 3. A complete, gradual (5-10 years) transition from single species fisheries management to EBFM 4. Continuation of single species fisheries management 5. A complete, immediate change (0-4 years) from single species fisheries management to EBFM
What are the potential barriers to EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members think that each of the following is a Moderate or Significant barrier to implementing EBFM. Concern that if EBFM is implemented, then the profits for fishermen and the fisheries industry will be less than they are now under current management Lack of science to support EBFM plans Lack of funding There are so many variables that must be considered Lack of definitive, achievable action plan for EBFM Council structure is currently organized to deal with individual fishery management plans Lack of reliable fish population models based on ecosystem-based principles Lack of political support Concern about lower fishing quotas Insufficient scientific data to support the transition to EBFM Concern that if EBFM is implemented, then the level of uncertainty in fish population assessments will be greater than it is now under current management Concern that if EBFM is implemented, then fishing quotas for individual managed species will be less than they are now under current management
What are the potential barriers to EBFM? The top 10 potential barriers to ecosystem-based fisheries management in rank by the number of interviewees who mentioned them at least once. Rank 1 2
Barriers Lack of science, data, and modelling capability EBFM is constrained by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; EBFM is not legally mandated
3
Need socioeconomic information
4
Lack of funding for EBFM
5
Governance
6
Lack of goals and an implementation plan for EBFM
7
Lack of stakeholder engagement
8
Reluctance to change
9
Lack of universally accepted definition of EBFM
10
Lack of stakeholder buy-in
Top ten potential barriers to EBFM mentioned during interviews, ranked, from highest to lowest, by the % of total interviewees (N=66) who mentioned the barrier at least once.
BARRIERS
% of TOTAL interviewees who mentioned barrier
# of interviews in which barrier was mentioned at # (%) of total MA # (%) of total MA Staff least once Council members members
# (%) of total Council SSC members
MA
# (%) of total NE # (%) of total NE # (%) of total NE Council SSC Council members Staff members members
Lack of science, data, and modelling capability
72%
50
18 (75%)
6 (100%)
4 (80%)
13 (59%)
6 (86%)
3 (60%)
EBFM is constrained by Magnuson; not legally mandated
64%
44
14 (%58)
3 (50%)
1 (20%)
16 (73%)
5 (71%)
5 (100%)
Need socioeconomic information
62%
43
15 (63%)
6 (100%)
2 (40%)
11 (50%)
6 (86%)
3 (60%)
Lack of funding for EBFM 42%
14 (%58) 8 (33%)
4 (67%) 3 (50%)
0 (0%) 4 (80%)
8 (36%) 8 (36%)
2 (29%) 4 (57%)
1 (20%) 1 (20%)
Governance
41%
29 28
Lack of goals and an implementation plan for EBFM
41%
28
6 (25%)
3 (50%)
1 (20%)
11 (50%)
4 (57%)
3 (60%)
Lack of stakeholder engagement
32%
22
6 (25%)
4 (67%)
2 (40%)
7 (32%)
3 (43%)
0 (0%)
Reluctance to change
32%
22
8 (33%)
1 (17%)
1 (20%)
10 (45%)
1 (14%)
1 (20%)
Lack of universally accepted definition of EBFM
30%
21
9 (38%)
4 (67%)
0 (0%)
6 (27%)
2 (29%)
0 (0%)
Lack of stakeholder buyin
29%
20
5 (21%)
1 (17%)
3 (60%)
7 (32%)
3 (43%)
1 (20%)
What are the social science needs for EBFM? New England and Mid-Atlantic stakeholders and Council members think that each of the following is a Very important or Moderately important social science need to support fisheries management decisions Social, economic, and cultural impact of fisheries management on coastal communities Economic impact of fisheries management on the commercial and recreational fishing industries, including revenue and job availability Willingness of commercial fishermen to modify fishing practices Improved understanding of how the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act supports ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) practices Predicted regulation and quota changes to commercial fisheries under EBFM Anticipated future political support for EBFM Anticipated future state and federal funding to support EBFM Consumer support and market demand for sustainable seafood Willingness of recreational fishermen to modify fishing practices
What are your recommendations for transitioning to EBFM? The top 10 recommendations for transitioning to ecosystem-based fisheries management (in rank by number of interviewees who mentioned them at least once. Rank Recommendations Define EBFM, identify objectives, and determine specific plan and time line for 1 implementation 2 Transition to EBFM incrementally Implement EBFM on an experimental or pilot study scale, observe outcomes, and adapt 3 management as necessary 4 Develop buy-in with all stakeholders about EBFM 5 Practice EBFM based on spatial management (ecosystem production units) The fishery management councils and leaders should look to the SSC and the science 6 center for science and models that would support EBFM 7 Consider removals based on a biomass cap 8 9 10
Increase understanding of ecosystems to prepare for long-term ecosystem changes Practice EBFM as supported by some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act National Standards Evaluate tradeoffs of EBFM plans
Top ten recommendations for EBFM mentioned during interviews, ranked, from highest to lowest, by the % of total interviewees (N=66) who mentioned the recommendation at least once.
RECOMMENDATIONS
% of TOTAL interviewees who mentioned recommendation
# of interviews in which recommendation was mentioned at # (%) of total MA least once Council members
# (%) of total MA Staff members
# (%) of total MA # (%) of total NE Council SSC members Council members
# (%) of total NE Staff members
# (%) of total NE Council SSC members
Define EBFM, identify objectives, and determine specific plan and time line for implementation
38%
26
9 (38%)
1 (17%)
1 (20%)
9 (41%)
4 (57%)
2 (40%)
Transition to EBFM incrementally
23%
16
5 (21%)
2 (33%)
1 (20%)
5 (23%)
1 (14%)
2 (40%)
Implement EBFM on an experimental scale
17%
12
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
6 (27%)
1 (14%)
2 (40%)
Councils should look to the SSC and the science center for science and models that would support EBFM
16%
11
4 (17%)
1 (17%)
3 (60%)
2 (9%)
1 (14%)
0 (0%)
Develop buy-in with stakeholders about EBFM
16%
11
1 (4%)
1 (17%)
2 (40%)
4 (18%)
2 (29%)
1 (20%)
Practice EBFM based on spatial management
16%
11
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (14%)
4 (57%)
2 (40%)
Consider removals based on a biomass cap
14%
10
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
2 (40%)
3 (14%)
2 (29%)
2 (40%)
Increase understanding of ecosystems
13%
9
4 (17%)
1 (17%)
2 (40%)
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Practice EBFM as supported by the National Standards
12%
8
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
1 (20%)
1 (5%)
3 (43%)
2 (40%)
Evaluate tradeoffs of EBFM plans
10%
7
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
2 (29%)
2 (40%)
Project Summary •
Research Objective #1: Evaluate the degree of understanding between Council decision makers and stakeholders about EBFM. – High level of understanding about EBFM between Council members and stakeholders in both the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions • Council members and stakeholders define EBFM as a holistic approach to management and desire a gradual transition to EBFM
•
Research Objective #2: Identify factors influencing the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils’ adoption of EBFM – Time line: • Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM – Barriers: • Concern that profits from fisheries will decrease due to EBFM • Lack of science, data, and modelling capability • Lack of funding • EBFM is constrained by Magnuson • Need socioeconomic information (Social, economic, and cultural impacts of EBFM) – Recommendations: • Define EBFM • Identify EBFM objectives • Implement a specific plan and time line for EBFM
Management implications for EBFM • Most common Council member and stakeholder perspectives in New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions: – Preferred Time line: • Incremental change from single species fisheries management to EBFM – Perceived Barriers: • Concern that profits from fisheries will decrease due to EBFM • Lack of science, data, and modelling capability • Lack of funding • EBFM is constrained by Magnuson • Need socioeconomic information (Social, economic, and cultural impacts of EBFM) – Recommendations: • Define EBFM • Identify EBFM objectives • Implement a specific plan and time line for EBFM
Funding Sources • Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station • JP Morgan Liebmann Fellowship Fund
Thank you
Appendices
Results: Survey response rates SURVEY RECIPIENT GROUP Members of both Councils New England Council decision makers Mid-Atlantic Council decision makers
#RETURNS #SENT %RESPONSE RATE 10 10 100% 27
59
46%
35
61
57%
New England NGO Leaders 39
78
50%
Mid-Atlantic NGO Leaders New England Commercial Fishermen Mid-Atlantic Commercial Fishermen New England Recreational Anglers Mid-Atlantic Recreational Anglers
16
56
29%
238
1333
18%
279
1333
21%
190
1333
14%
232
1333
17%
Survey response rates to decision maker and stakeholder surveys distributed to recipients in the NE and MA regions.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act •
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act now contains 10 National Standards for fishery conservation and management, with which all Fishery Management Plans must comply.
•
National Standards: – – – – – – – – – –
Prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield. Be based upon the best scientific information available. Manage individual stocks as a unit throughout their range, to the extent practicable; interrelated stocks shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. Not discriminate between residents of different states; any allocation of privileges must be fair and equitable. Where practicable, promote efficiency, except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. Take into account and allow for variations among and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. Minimize costs and avoid duplications, where practicable. Take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities to provide for the sustained participation of, and minimize adverse impacts to, such communities (consistent with conservation requirements). Minimize bycatch or mortality from bycatch. Promote safety of human life at sea
http://www.mafmc.org
