April 24, 2012 – In recent weeks, Republicans in Congress have once again taken aim at a comprehensive ocean management and protection plan. In misleading hearings and op-eds, their talking points mirror rumors that have long been exposed as false—that the National Ocean Policy (NOP) is somehow a direct assault on fishing.
Frankly, such an assertion is ridiculous. The National Ocean Policy, with proper stakeholder input, would actually protect habitat and access and result in the common sense management of marine resources. Current attempts to defund and delay implementation of the National Ocean Policy are a thinly veiled attack on the basic programs that protect, maintain and restore the health of our oceans and coasts.
The policy’s improved ocean management effort is designed to protect and create jobs, and grow our economy by ensuring all the multiple uses of the ocean don’t come crashing down on each other. It requires the more than 20 federal agencies that govern our seas—currently in an uncoordinated and ad hoc way—to finally work together, with input from local governments, ocean industries and, yes, fishermen. To some, this may appear as yet another layer of government intervention. But the truth is it will actually streamline the process, reduce bureaucratic red tape and perhaps more importantly, enlist local stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Recreational and commercial fishermen would indeed benefit from the National Ocean Policy. It would help us address all the factors that stand to jeopardize fish populations, from habitat destruction to water pollution. While ocean-use conflicts between industries like fishing and energy development continue to increase, the NOP will help us manage these conflicts by planning ahead to help keep, for example, energy plants off prime fishing grounds and unique habitat, so that all sectors can coexist. In fact, a recent Massachusetts case study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that planning ahead for ocean industry could generate more than $10 billion for the energy sector and prevent more than $1 million in losses to the fishery and whale watching sectors, compared to the status quo.
Read the full article at The Hill.