June 21, 2012 – The following is an excerpt from a story by the Public Trust Project:
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is taking steps to ensure greater transparency in its scientific committee meetings after industry consultants tried to dominate a subcommittee hearing in May in North Carolina.
That meeting, which was reported by the Public Trust Project, included government scientists from state agencies as well as federal researchers who discussed the 2012 stock assessment process for Atlantic menhaden, a small, critically important forage fish that has suffered massive declines in recent years. The official 2012 stock assessment will help fishery managers determine how many menhaden are left in the water and the volume of fish that should be placed off-limits to the commercial harvesters.
But industry consultants funded by Omega Protein – the largest industrial harvester of menhaden — cast a long shadow at the meeting, interrupting the proceedings, advising government researchers and making recommendations about changes to the stock assessment model.
After the meeting, government scientists on the stock assessment subcommittee offered their perspectives in interviews with the Public Trust Project. And several shared their concerns that overt industry participation might have violated protocol.
Richen Brame of the Coastal Conservation Association blogged that in his thirteen years of attending ASMFC technical meetings, he had never witnessed such “egregious” participation by the industry in the scientific process.
“The two scientists hired by Omega are some of the best-known stock assessment experts in the world, and their opinions should be available to the stock assessment subcommittee and technical committee, but in a controlled fashion that is fair to all,” he wrote.
To the ASMFC’s credit, at a subsequent stock assessment subcommittee webinar, industry consultants were allowed to provide input only at the end of the session, during an established public comment period.
Read the full story at the Public Trust Project.
Analysis: The Public Trust Project alleges that the current effort by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to draft new rules for public participation in its committee meetings came “after industry consultants tried to dominate a Menhaden Technical Committee hearing in May in North Carolina.” However, this is not the view held by the head of the ASMFC, who stated that the new rules were long in development before the Menhaden Technical Committee meeting last May.
“It was something that was formally initiated at our February meeting,” said Bob Beal, acting Executive Director of the ASMFC. “Our current Technical Committee Guidance Document is about 11 years old or so, we need to revamp that document just based on its age, and changes in the world that we live in that have occurred in the last 11 years. We’re migrating towards more conference calls, web-based meetings, that sort of thing.”
Beal noted that participation in technical committee meetings by outside stakeholders and scientists is relatively new to the ASMFC but is becoming increasingly common. The new rules are an attempt to both allow for the increased public participation while also allowing for the committees to fulfill their duties.
“The committees are there to do their job, and they need to get certain things done in the time allotted,” he said. “But within that is the need to be open to the public, and allowing the public come in and interact with the technical committees. What sort of side boards we want to put on those interactions is the question we are trying to get at.”
The Public Trust Project also alleged that scientific consultants Dr. Doug Butterworth and Dr. Mike Prager were violating protocol by heavily participating in the meetings. They allege that the scientists “cast a long shadow at the meeting, interrupting the proceedings, advising government researchers and making recommendations about changes to the stock assessment model.”
This sentiment was echoed by Richen Brame of the Coastal Conservation Association. Brame considered Drs. Prager and Butterworth’s participation to be “egregious” and wrote that their level of participation was “out of bounds, and it casts doubt on the validity of these proceedings.” While Brame recognizes that Drs. Prager and Butterworth are some of the world’s preeminent stock assessment scientists, he felt the manner of their participation “tainted the legitimacy of the proceedings” by giving the appearance of an industry-controlled process.
Beal noted that, while some observers may have been of the opinion that the efforts of Drs. Prager and Butterworth at the stock assessment subcommittee meeting influenced the outcome, they did not violate ASMFC protocol. Current ASMFC rules leave control of public participation in stock assessment committee meetings to the discretion of the committee chair.
“Their participation was controlled and allowed by the chair of that meeting. It was really up to the chair, and he felt it was a constructive discussion. He was apparently not concerned about preventing that discussion at the meeting,” he said. “My understanding is that they weren’t inserting themselves beyond what the chair was allowing at the meeting.”
While outside participation is allowed during the stock assessment review process, its ultimate influence on the outcome of the assessment is limited. Outside observers are allowed to make suggestions and offer critiques, but are unable to change key elements of the stock assessment, such as the data used, the assessment model, and the reference points. These key decisions are still ultimately left to the ASMFC.