Are We Missing the Boat? Collaborative Solutions for North American Fish Wars

Although there have been significant efforts recently to improve fishery management laws and eliminate overfishing in the United States (e.g., Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization in 2006), many of our stocks remain overfished or have not been assessed. New collaborative partnerships and innovative business models are sorely needed to bridge the divide among stakeholders and to reform our ailing fisheries. Fishers are subject to increasing regulatory measures and face dwindling revenues. There are still many examples of destructive fishing practices that have significant impacts on marine ecosystems, and our fisheries are not yet managed in a broader ecosystem context. The perceived lack of common ground between the fishing industry and environmental organizations impedes progress in moving toward more sustainable fisheries. This does not have to be our reality. This situation results from two key problems. First, our system of fisheries management relies principally on top-down management that is too complex, relies too little on the best available science, and is too often at the mercy of increasingly constrained state and federal budgets. Second, the high degree of polarization among fishery stakeholders impedes collaborative solutions. Competing interests weaken incentives for improved economic and biological stewardship, which has, in turn, led fishers to overcapitalize and overexploit the resource in a race for fish. Relationships among stakeholders, especially fishers and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are bitterly adversarial, and fishery managers find themselves paralyzed by their constituents’ extreme polarization. Entrenched positions taken by special interest groups and the threat of lawsuits often provide political cover for regulators to avoid hard decisions. The resulting mess can be termed “fish wars.” The casualties of the fish wars have been the consumer, the environment, coastal communities, and small-scale fishers. Although seafood demand in North America has increased in recent decades, many of our fisheries have experienced significant declines in landings. Americans are increasingly relying on imported fish (with unknown associated environmental and health impacts) and are unable to purchase local, sustainably caught seafood. As a result, we are exporting many of our fisheries management problems to other countries that have even less capacity to address them. Fishery managers have sought to solve the problem of too many boats chasing too few fish by trying to reduce fishing pressure through limiting the number of permit-holding fishers and, sometimes, by buying and retiring some permits to reduce effort. Nevertheless, the pendulum has swung hard in the other direction, fueling consolidation in the industry that favors large fishing corporations and pushes out small-scale fishers. Some fishers, strained by years of difficulty, leave the fishery permanently (and sometimes en masse), and barriers for small-boat fishers—such as the cost to purchase a permit to gain access to the fishery—make it difficult for new entrants to participate. Fishing communities are losing fishing-related jobs, access to the local resource, and infrastructure, and we all are losing a part of our maritime heritage that has existed for generations and helps to fuel coastal tourism. Furthermore, we are losing the knowledge held by those who have spent their lives on the water, as well as the energy and innovation new entrants and small businesses could bring to addressing our ailing fisheries. Many small-scale fishers are outcompeted by larger fishing operations, which is unfortunate because small businesses are likely a more sustainable scale of operation, are more nimble and adaptive, and are more likely to try innovative approaches to gain an edge. The lack of good working relationships among stakeholders represents one of the greatest challenges to effecting change in fisheries management. It often appears that managers and fishers have become insular and resistant to change, while environmental groups have become adept at pointing out problems and assigning blame. Fishing industries are often intransigent and incentivized for short-term profitability, not long-term stewardship of the public resource. If a fishery is depleted, the industry often moves on to the next profitable target. In addition, small-scale fishers and their communities are generally insufficiently organized or unified to influence the regulatory and political process necessary to protect local access to and stewardship of resources. Fishery managers have been hampered by lack of funding, capacity, innovation, and political will and instead have resorted to increasingly rigid and complicated regulation in reaction to lawsuits and stock declines. Fishery scientists struggle to assess even a small portion of the stocks and monitor some of the fishing effort, much less consider cumulative impacts of fishing or ecosystem-scale management of fisheries. Environmental NGOs—driven by concern about the threats fishing can pose, scientific uncertainties in fishery management, and the precautionary approach—have traditionally focused on gaining ecosystem protection and restricting fisheries through lawsuits, closed areas, or adversarial means rather than true collaboration. Each faction is focused only on their issues and lacks the resources or the will to consider the whole. In most fisheries long-term economic viability relies on healthy stocks and healthy marine habitats, which sets the stage for environmental NGOs and fishers to become natural partners in the design of truly innovative solutions around which all parties can rally. Together we must develop and test new fishery management models that will protect ecosystem benefits and preserve fishing opportunities. Fortunately, there are some emerging examples of new on-the-water partnerships and demonstration projects in which NGOs, managers, and fishers are stretching beyond their comfort zones to bridge the divide. Some NGOs are starting to get some “skin in the game” by acquiring fishing permits and, together with partners and the community, using those assets as platforms to test new approaches. These partnerships are accelerating the development of new and innovative fishing business models. In some cases NGOs and fishers are collaborating to create permit, license, or quota banks, which can secure access to adjacent fishing grounds and stocks, foster collaborative research and monitoring, and enable sharing of fishing assets and resources. Another approach involves cooperatives or community-based fishing associations, which would operate according to mutually agreed upon environmental and economic performance standards. These entities could hold fishing permits or quotas and provide medical benefits and other economies of scale for small-scale fishers. These ideas, and others, are being pioneered around North America and serve as crucial learning opportunities for both the industry and the environmental community. In New England the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fisherman's Association is a groundbreaking partnership between commercial fishers and coastal residents that is promoting healthier fish stocks and revitalizing the industry through more sustainable fishing practices. Local fishers, concerned about the issues outlined here, initiated outreach to the community to develop a solution. Together, they now play a key role in fishery reform. In addition to using less-damaging gear, such as hook and line and fish weirs, the association is pioneering the allocation of groundfish to sectors; acquiring groundfish, scallop, and lobster quotas for member fishermen; conducting collaborative research; and engaging in community-based management. On the western coast of British Columbia local groundfishers and Ecotrust Canada have designed and implemented a novel business model that not only seeks to improve the economic viability and sustainability of local fishermen, but also strives to make ownership of permits and quotas affordable to rural fishing communities. Ecotrust and others secured private financing and established a license bank—a corporation owned by the fishers that purchases and holds fishing assets in partnership with outside investors. The collaboration allows fishers with smaller operations to have a more substantive stake in the fishery and, by encouraging them to operate and deliver their products closer to home, helps keep the economic benefits within the community. On California's central coast The Nature Conservancy is collaborating with fishers and regulatory agencies to improve the economic performance of the groundfish fishery, rebuild fish stocks, and protect seafloor habitat. Together they are exploring the potential of transitioning some of the fishery's harvest effort away from bottom trawling, which has created significant environmental and regulatory problems for the fishery. On the basis of recommendations from the National Research Council on abating bottom trawling impacts to seafloor habitats, the Conservancy used private buyouts of trawl permits to leverage habitat protection, reduce trawl effort, and convert traditional trawl effort to more selective, less-damaging gear. By acquiring and assembling a trawl permit bank, the Conservancy is now able to lease its trawl permits to local fishers with legal conservation restrictions, transition trawl effort to hook and line, and test collective harvesting and monitoring approaches. Together the Conservancy and partners are also testing a prototype community-fishing association that could hold and manage permits or quotas and build a foundation for a more-sustainable local fishery. One of the greatest benefits of this project has been the new partnership among NGOs, fishers, and managers, who have agreed to work closely together to test new approaches and to learn from each other. Partnerships like these will also strengthen scientific understanding of fisheries in the broader context of marine ecosystem protection and better inform management approaches at ecologically relevant scales. Fishers crave better science to support fisheries management, and NGOs have the resources and expertise to help fill this gap. Although collaborative fisheries research is not new, it needs to be more strategic in bringing together the right partners to address the most important questions to promote more sustainable management. The Northeast Consortium (at the University of New Hampshire) in partnership with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is one example of an effort to bring local input and strategic vision to collaborative research programs. The partnership is also assessing the effectiveness of that research in informing management decisions, building trust and communication between fishers and scientists, and enhancing economic values. Although they may appear to be unlikely partners, fishers and conservationists have started to realize the potential of collaboration. In some cases it may behoove federal managers to step back and allow fishers, NGOs, and scientists to redesign and restructure a pilot fishery and then support these efforts via the regulatory process. When fishers are empowered and incentivized to better steward their local resources, it may well ease the regulatory burden. Creating opportunities to test collaborative management approaches is key to ultimately bringing about fisheries reform in the United States. To be successful we must look to our shared values—in healthy oceans, economic stability in coastal communities, and supplies of fresh local seafood—and actively encourage all stakeholders to work together. Fishery managers can foster and leverage uncommon partnerships to develop new approaches to fishery management. And NGOs can be more effective partners by admitting that they still have a lot to learn about fishery socioeconomics. In the end it may not be a lack of new ideas and resources that block our road toward fishery reform, but rather the unwillingness of key fishery stakeholders to work together. We must take real steps to avoid this outcome. We must stop the fish wars, stop assigning blame, meet each other halfway, and be willing to learn from each other. Only then will we be able to create a brighter future for our oceans, our coastal communities, and our seafood supply.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.