November 8, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In response to a request from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council reviewed three bills related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, comparing them to the current law and practices used to manage the nation’s largest fisheries.
“The North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries management, and major changes are not necessary at this time,” wrote NPFMC chair Dan Hull.
“Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with appropriate cautionary notes and limitations.
“In order for the Council to provide for the continued conservation of our resources, any changes to the law providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and management tenets based on sound science are upheld, and should not create incentives or justifications to overlook them,” Hull wrote.
Allowing more flexibility in fisheries management, particularly when stocks in a rebuilding phase, is a hot-button issue with many stakeholders, not just in the North Pacific but nationwide. Proponents of adding more flexibility to any new legislation say the current law is too protective of the resource at a cost to the fishery. They urge more flexibility so that each management council can optimize yield without jeopardizing the resource.
“Regarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock rebuilding plans, the NPFMC believes that further flexibility, would appropriately increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still effecting rebuilding of fish stocks,” noted Hull, referring to HR 200, the bill introduced by Alaska Congressman Don Young.
“The arbitrary 10-year requirement may constrain the Councils management flexibility with overly restrictive management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with little or no conservation gain,” Hull wrote.
Another controversal issue is using annual catch limits (ACLs) to manage stocks, something opponents have said needlessly restricts a fishery. Hull defended the importance of ACLs as a foundational part of fisheries management.
“Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been used in the North Pacific for over 30 years, and such limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.
“Consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance for these considerations.
“We must be careful however, not to jeopardize long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic activity associated with a fishery,” he wrote.
“Accounting for uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL process, and we believe that the [Scientific and Statistical Committees] SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the upper limits of ‘safe’ fishing mortality. This limit, which is established as the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) level, appears to be consistent with the provisions of H.R.200,” Hull added.
Speaking to Rep. Garrett Grave’s (R-LA) S. 1520 Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act of 2017, Hull noted that “alternative measures” may not meet the standard in the current MSA.
“The bill provides the councils authority to use alternative measures in recreational fisheries including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices.
“The NPFMC notes that it is unclear if alternative fishery management measures replace the requirement for ACLs. Nevertheless, fisheries managed under alternative measures should be accountable to the conservation and management provisions of the MSA, including prevention of overfishing. ACL’s serve as the primary conservation measure for fish stocks in the North Pacific, and have effectively prevented overharvesting in our fisheries. The NPFMC also notes that traditional or cultural practices are not normally considered as recreational fisheries,” Hull wrote.
Hull also addressed the section in the bill related to rebuilding overfished stocks that would mandate a rebuilding term to be “as short as possible” but in any case not to exceed ten years.
“The NPFMC believes that the arbitrary 10-year time period can be harmful to resource users and fishing communities if it prohibits even limited fishing activity under a scientifically sound rebuilding plan. Replacing the term ‘possible’ with ‘practicable’ provides the councils with more flexibility to incorporate the needs of fishing communities in maintaining economic stability during a rebuilding period,” Hull wrote.
The NPFMC took issue with sections of Rep. Jared Huffman’s Discussion Draft (also called “Strengthening Fishing Communities Through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act”) in certain areas, while agreeing with others.
But a section requiring an assessment of conflict of interest of council members, triggered a lengthy comment on problems the NPFMC have faced and a solution they’ve offered to NMFS.
The current MSA conflict of interest language leaves a standard for recusal of a council member up for interpretation. The recusal provision in the current law requires full economic disclosure but also that an affected individual not be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on a member’s financial interest.
“The MSA language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10% threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining whether a recusal is required,” explained Hull.
“The primary problem is the way in which NOAA calculates a member’s financial interests in determining whether the 10% thresholds are exceeded. The NOAA and NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a company — even partially owned by an associated company — in calculating an individual Council member’s interests. The North Pacific Council believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.
“The following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50% of Fishing Company B, which in turn owns 3% of Fishing Company C. NOAA uses ALL harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10% thresholds,” Hull explained.
“The North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council believes that NOAA should use only the amount of harvesting or processing activity equivalent to the Council member’s percentage of ownership,” Hull continued.
“Using this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use 100% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company A, 50% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company B, and 1.5% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the thresholds.
“At our request, NOAA and NMFS revisited the attribution policy, but to date, have declined to make changes,” Hull wrote.
Finally, on behalf of the NPFMC, Hull asked that any new legislation:
• Avoids across the board mandates which could negatively affect one region in order to address a problem in another region.
• Allows flexibility in achieving conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ‘guidelines’.
• Is in the form of intended outcomes, rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.
• Avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other management actions.
• Avoids constraints that limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems.
• Avoids unfunded mandates.
• Prioritizes the reservation and enhancement of stock assessments and surveys among the highest when considering any changes to the Act.
This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.