May 14, 2014 — To achieve both the conservation and utilization goals of the MSA, regulators should provide guidance to fishery managers to assist them with developing additional tools for dealing with uncertainty in ways that do not compromise sustainability objectives. Providing alternative pathways for dealing with uncertainty can reduce the policy polarization existing under the current regulatory regime.
The Economic Importance of Fisheries
U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries are a financial mainstay in many coastal communities, generating billions of dollars of economic activity annually. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal agency tasked with implementing the MSA, the most recent data show that the U.S. commercial seafood industry generated approximately $55 billion in value added impacts in 2011.
The commercial industry also supports approximately 1.2 million full- and part-time jobs and provides nearly $37 billion in annual income to industry workers. Similarly, recreational fisheries generated about $32 billion in value added impacts in 2011, supporting over 455,000 full- and part-time jobs. In addition, the depressed status of many stocks suggests that the economic importance of the U.S. fishing industry has not reached its full potential, because fishing could increase as depressed stocks rebound.
The economic importance of the U.S. fishing industry cannot be overstated. The survival of many coastal communities largely depends on whether Congress and fishery managers can establish policies allowing fisheries to generate yield over the long term, rebuild overfished stocks and achieve the conservation objectives of the MSA.
History and Purpose of the MSA
Signed into law April 13, 1976, the MSA was enacted "to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to realize the full potential of the nation's fishery resources." The MSA was enacted at a time when unregulated foreign fishing fleets were depleting fishery resources off the coasts of the United States. In response, the MSA established a fishery conservation zone extending 200 nautical miles from the coast. In that zone, the United States would exercise exclusive regulatory authority over fishing practices. As noted during the Senate debate on the MSA, the 200-mile limit was intended to "protect and conserve fishery resources," as well as to "revitalize the American fishing industry." By effectively controlling foreign and domestic use of fish stocks, the MSA would provide "greater economic stability within the fishing industry," thereby "enabling the industry to sustain itself in a healthy condition."
Pursuant to the MSA, there are approximately 45 fishery management plans, or FMPs, providing a framework for managing the harvest of 230 major fish stocks or stock complexes comprising 90 percent of the commercial harvest. These FMPs are developed by Regional Fishery Management Councils in eight regions nationwide. Once an FMP is developed, it must be approved by the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has delegated that authority to the National Marine Fisheries Service. An FMP will be approved only if it is consistent with 10 national standards of fishery management.
The management tools Congress included in the MSA reflect the goals of rebuilding overfished stocks, generating fishery yield and preventing overfishing. As required by National Standard 1, each FMP must "prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield … from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry."
In other words, the MSA's focus is to provide optimum yield for fishermen, processors and fishing-dependent communities. Optimum yield is defined as the amount of fish that: "(a) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation …; (b) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social or ecological factor; and (c) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery." Achieving optimum yield means managing fish stocks to produce "a long-term series of catches" that do not result in overfishing.
Thus, the goal of the MSA is to generate yield for the fishery while preventing overfishing. The concept of maximum sustainable yield in the definition of optimum yield links the conservation goals of the MSA with its utilization goals; preventing overfishing ultimately facilitates the long-term economic viability of the fishing industry and fishery-dependent communities.
Thus, optimum yield and maximum sustainable yield reflect the MSA's ultimate purpose of preventing overfishing while generating fishery yield. In reviewing FMPs, courts have agreed that, "Congress' primary goal in passing the MSA was to address overfishing and mandate the sustainable conservation of threatened fish stocks."
Read the full article from the Westlaw Journal Environmental here