|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK + PDF PAPERBACK PDF BOOK PDF CHAPTERS Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 51
4
Setting Research Priorities
IDENTIFYING COOPERATIVE FISHERY
RESEARCH NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Regardless of whether a fishery research program is labeled as funda-
mentally cooperative, collaborative, noncooperative, directed, or tradi-
tional, effective research programs must identify research needs and priori-
ties consistent with legal requirements, management objectives, and budget
and resource constraints. Identifying and prioritizing research needs in fish-
eries, however, can be a daunting task given the (1) challenging legal and
regulatory environment, (2) multiple and potentially conflicting manage-
ment objectives, (3) significant scientific uncertainties, (4) numerous stake-
holder groups with alternative agendas, and (5) limits on fiscal and human
resources.
Under the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conserva-
tion and Management Act (MSFCMA) as amended by the Sustainable Fish-
eries Act in 1996, Section 404 (Fisheries Research) requires the Secretary of
Commerce to develop a strategic fisheries research plan (NMFS, 20011.
The act stipulates that the plan provide a role for commercial fisheries in
research areas described within the plan, including involvement in field
testing. The plan requires that a comprehensive program contain the follow-
ing (priority) areas of research:
· Research supporting fishery conservation and management, includ-
51
OCR for page 52
52 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ing but not limited to biological research, abundance, trends, life history of
stocks of fish, interdependence of fisheries or stocks and the ecosystem,
identification of essential fish habitat, impact of pollution, and impact of
wetland and estuarine degradation
· Conservation engineering research, including the study of fish be-
havior, developing and testing new gear technology and fishing techniques
to minimize bycatch and any adverse effects on essential fish habitat, and
the promotion of efficient harvest of target species
· Research on the fisheries, including the social, cultural, and eco-
nomic relationships among fishing vessel owners, crews, processors, labor,
seafood markets, and fishing communities
· Research and development of a fishery information base and an
nformation management system
i,
The emphasis on constituent involvement in cooperative research is
reemphasized in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries Strategic Plan (NOAA Fisheries, 2002), which states:
To the extent practicable, we (NOAA Fisheries) will charter fishing ves-
sels to participate in research projects, invite constituents to participate aboard
NOAA research vessels during resource surveys, encourage frequent contact
and cooperation between scientists and constituents, and incorporate scien-
tifically valid observations by fishers and others into fish stock assessments
and other analyses related to living marine resources and their habitat.
Goal 5 of this plan states that National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) will improve the effectiveness of external partnerships with fish-
ers, managers, scientists, conservationists, and other interested parties by:
· Promoting a cooperative network of partners in the coordination of
fisheries research
· Developing infrastructure for long-term continuous working rela-
tionships with partners to address fisheries research issues
· Sponsoring symposia and conferences for partners to exchange in-
formation and identify major research initiatives
· Soliciting partners' views on fisheries research needs
Developing a mechanism and infrastructure to develop, prioritize, and
coordinate cooperative research, however, can be a daunting task given the
overall complexities of the U.S. fisheries science and management system
and issues specific to each region and fishery. For example, in 1998 a con-
OCR for page 53
SETTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES
53
ference was held in Portland, Oregon, with an explicit objective of develop-
ing a research infrastructure for prioritizing and coordinating West Coast
cooperative groundfish research (Fisher et al., 19991. Although many good
ideas and proposals were developed, none of the participating groups, in-
cluding the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC), Pacific States
Marine Fish Commission, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC),
state agencies, environmental organizations, industry groups, Sea Grant,
and universities were willing to take leadership and champion the develop-
ment of a coordinating mechanism at that time. Although some of the
research ideas were valuable to NWFSC in developing the groundfish
research plan, no coordinating infrastructure has been developed on the
West Coast that is consistent with NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan Goal 5.
A recent report by the National Research Council (NRC, 2002) em-
phasizes five areas of science that are not adequately addressed by NMFS
and should be considered high priority: (1) research to meet the legal man-
dates of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act;
(2) collecting and analyzing spatial data; (3) supporting ecosystem science
and related models; (4) developing new techniques to link biological, so-
cial, and economic data; and (5) linking market and nonmarket values with
management scenarios. The report also states that NMFS should facilitate
greater cooperation between scientists and stakeholders (including fishery
participants) to improve the quality and efficiency of data collection in
these and other areas of science and create a shared sense of confidence in
what the data indicate.
The MSFCMA, NMFS strategic plans, and NRC reports highlight
and prioritize broad areas of fisheries research. These documents also em-
phasize the importance and potential contribution of industry and stake-
holder cooperation for improving science and management. Although these
documents explicitly note cooperative research that involves vessels, gear,
or fisherman's knowledge, they do not prioritize any particular research
area for cooperation; nor do they discuss research areas that should not be
prioritized or may be inappropriate for cooperation. The implicit but un-
stated assumption is that many types of research may be improved through
cooperation in the science process. This can include stock assessment and
monitoring, gear-related research on impacts to the habitat and ecosystem,
and social and economic research requiring sensitive individual- and firm-
level data.
An additional but equally important issue is determining what degree
of cooperation will maximize benefits: cooperation in only one element of
OCR for page 54
54 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
the research and science process or comprehensive engagement ("collabora-
tion") in most or all elements of the research process (ideas, hypotheses,
proposals, funding, design, conduct, analysis, review, publication, commu-
nication). The significant regional differences in fisheries, ecosystems, man-
agement and scientific institutions, and fiscal resources suggest there is no
consistent answer for determining which cooperative research projects
should be prioritized. However, on the basis of recent experiences in coop-
erative research, there are some guiding principles and criteria that may be
useful for prioritizing cooperative research and estimating the degree of
cooperative engagement that will generate significant, positive benefits for
science, management, and society.
DEVELOPING CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING
COOPERATIVE FISHERIES RESEARCH
Any process developed for prioritizing cooperative fisheries research
must be efficient, open, transparent, and fair. In addition, the following
issues should be considered:
.
· The expected gain in scientific and management benefits
· The types and degree of cooperative engagement that will maximize
fishery science and management benefits
In some cases only a small degree of engagement may be appropriate
and necessary to generate substantial research and management benefits.
For relatively minor fisheries research (i.e., an expected low payoff), the
transaction costs to engage fishermen and other constituents may exceed
possible science and management benefits
· The expected research costs, including opportunity CoStS of employ-
ng fiscal and human resources
· The expected time stream of net benefits (e.g., short-term versus
long-term net payoffs)
· The efficiency, openness (transparency), and fairness of the
. . . .
prlorltlzatlon process
· The process can be led by a single group or a committee, but the
process and results cannot be owned by any given organization.
The process must include all relevant constituents and partners in se-
. . . .. . . .
lectlng ant ~ prlorltlzlng cooperative science anc ~ management.
· The objectives of cooperative research
OCR for page 55
SETTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES
55
Fishery management is plagued by numerous objectives that are
vaguely defined, conflicting, or unquantified. This makes it difficult to
develop criteria for prioritizing cooperative research. It is critical that scien-
tists and other parties engage fishery managers in strategic discussions for
establishing quantifiable objectives that can be used for prioritizing and
evaluating cooperative research (NRC, 20021.
In addition, scientists, managers, industry, and other constituents need
to collaboratively evaluate potential benefits and costs over time in order to
develop consensus priorities for cooperative research. For example, a study
by Harms and Sylvia (1999) demonstrated that while West Coast ground-
fish fishermen and scientists had significantly different views on the poten-
tial benefits of alternative science-related cooperative projects, they had
similar views on the relative costs and potential cost effectiveness of these
projects.
Innovation and competition are key elements driving an efficient sci-
entific process. A fair but incentive-based process for awarding cooperative
fisheries research funds is critical for achieving science and management
objectives. Criteria must be selected to ensure that innovation, creativity,
and rational competition are maintained while emphasizing equity and fair-
ness. Government administration and industry can collaborate as teams,
but there may be direct competition between teams with different ideas,
hypotheses, and research methods.
Evaluating successful and unsuccessful cooperative research projects
can be useful for prioritizing and estimating the expected benefits and costs
of alternative cooperative research projects and their design and level of
engagement. The elements of successful projects include (1) substantial
incentives and benefits to research partners; (2) rigorous coengagement in
most elements of the scientific process; (3) complementary skills and abili-
ties; (4) honesty, trust, and mutual respect; and (5) adequate financial, ad-
ministrative, and scientific support. Successful and popular cooperative re-
search also tends to cluster around projects where fishermen's vessels, gear,
and expertise can be readily employed (e.g., fisheries monitoring, bycatch
studies, logbooks), and research results may substantially change assess-
ments and regulations to provide short- and long-term economic benefits
to fishermen. Although cooperative projects have not tended to focus on
long-term environmental studies on ecosystems and fishery habitats, this
may reflect institutional disincentives rather than lack of interest on the
part of fishermen in the long-term health and productivity of the marine
environment.
OCR for page 56
56 COOPERATIVE RESE^CHIN THE NATIONAL MINE FISHERIES SERVICE
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) noted that
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) is criticized for its lack of openness in establish-
ing science programs. NAPA recommended that NMFS jointly develop
and administer its research programs with key constituents (NAPA, 20021.
NAPA also noted that there is no standardized process for selecting and
prioritizing cooperative research for federally managed fisheries. Each
region, science center, and council has alternative approaches for develop-
ing and prioritizing cooperative research. For example, the NWFSC has
developed a comprehensive and prioritized groundfish research plan
(NWFSC, 2000) that uses ideas, discussions, and recommendations from
various forums, individuals, and constituent groups. The plan describes the
general need for industry and constituent involvement but provides no
details or strategies. The PFMC's Science and Statistical Team develops a
biannual prioritized Research and Data Needs document. These needs,
however, are developed without formal coordination with the NWFSC.
The Research and Data Needs document also does not discuss or prioritize
cooperative research projects. In contrast, the New England Fisheries
Management Council has established the Research Steering Committee
composed of scientists, managers, and industry to develop prioritized co-
operative research projects that integrate science and management needs.
Projects are supported through congressional funding to NMFS and spe-
cifically the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, which are targeted for co-
operative research.
ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES FOR PRIORITIZING AND
COORDINATING COOPERATIVE FISHERY RESEARCH
Depending on politics, institutions, and funding, there are a number
of possible policy models or "policy infrastructure" scenarios that could be
used to prioritize and coordinate cooperative research while addressing
NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan Goal 5. The following descriptions briefly
. · .
SUmmarlZe SIX examples.
Scenario 1: Status Quo Cooperative Research Coordination
The following are characteristics of current coordination of U.S. coop-
erative research:
OCR for page 57
SETTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES
57
· no standard approach for planning and prioritizing cooperative re-
search across regions
· no structure to coordinate cooperative research and management
across constituents, management agencies, and science groups, including
.. . . .
centers, councils, ant ~ universities
· uneven distribution of earmarked cooperative research funds across
regions and among science centers
.
schisms between industry, NMFS fisheries science centers, and other
agencies over prioritization and allocation of earmarked dollars for "coop-
erative" versus "noncooperative" research
· significant input from Congress over support and design of"coop-
. .. .
eratlve researcn
· unstable funding for NMFS fisheries science center research budget
line items and earmarks for cooperative research
This complicates research planning and potentially reduces effective-
ness of all cooperative research programs.
Scenario 2: NMFS-Based Cooperative Research Coordination
An alternative approach would be to directly provide NMFS with the
administrative authority to coordinate cooperative research. This would be
characterized by:
· NMFS fisheries science centers having a lead role in coordinating
and prioritizing federal fisheries research within each region, including
directing funds earmarked for cooperative research
.
national headquarters providing oversight and/or standard ap-
~ . . . . . .
pro aches tor coon donating or prlorltlzlng
· NMFS fisheries science centers electing to form advisory groups for
science and management, and constituency groups to assist in developing
priority research and recommend approaches for integrating cooperative
effects for all priority research areas
.
.
potential for rifts between industry, other entities, and NMFS fish-
eries science centers over prioritization and allocation of earmarked
dollars
· Unstable funding for NMFS fisheries science center research budget
line items and earmarks for cooperative research, complicating research
OCR for page 58
58 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
planning and potentially reducing effectiveness of all cooperative research
programs.
Scenario 3: Fishery Management Council-Based
Cooperative Research Coordination
If the fishery management councils (FMCs) were to take the lead we
could see:
· FMCs lead the effort to select, prioritize, and coordinate coopera-
tive fisheries research funded with federal funds within each region, includ-
ing funds earmarked for cooperative research
· each FMC establish a cooperative research committee composed of
a broad cross section of federal, state, academic, and nongovernment scien-
tists, industry representatives, and fishery managers
· FMCs provide cooperative research committees with broad discre-
tion to select and prioritize cooperative research areas and programs to
achieve fishery management goals
Cooperative research committees would be expected to evaluate the
potential engagement opportunities for industry, nongovernmental organi-
zations (NGOs), and other private and public groups for all federal fisher-
ies science. The committees would be expected to develop formal coordina-
tion plans with the NMFS fisheries science centers.
· potential for rifts between NMFS fisheries science centers, environ-
mental organizations, and FMCs over committee recommendations
· potential for continued pressure on Congress to earmark funds for
"cooperative" research, leading to concern about NMFS fisheries science
center funding
· unstable funding for cooperative research, complicating research
planning and potentially reducing effectiveness of all cooperative research
programs
Scenario 4: Industry-Based Research Coordination
Fishing industry organizations could lead the effort to select, priori-
tize, and coordinate industry-funded fisheries research through the follow-
ing:
OCR for page 59
SETTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES
59
· industry organizations impose voluntary tax or, conversely, govern-
ment requires industry groups to pay for research and management costs as
mandated by "cost recovery" programs (cost recovery programs are usually
associated with quota share-based fishery management systems, e.g., indi-
vidual fishing quotas lIFQsl)
· industry groups use a coordinating committee to reach consensus
with scientists and government in selecting, prioritizing, and conducting
research (e.g., West Coast Canadian Groundfish IFQ Program; Turris,
1999)
.
NMFS fisheries science centers not directly responsible for coopera-
tive fishery research attributable to fishery management; however, they
might contract with industry groups in cooperative ventures
.
potential rifts between industry, NMFS fisheries science centers,
and FMCs over committee recommendations and study outcomes
· unstable funding as a result of variations in revenues available for
taxation or cost recoveries, complicating research planning
Scenario 5: Neutral Third-Party Research Coordination
Other organizations have missions consistent with leadership roles in
prioritizing and coordinating fisheries research. For example, national or
state Sea Grant organizations, interstate marine fisheries commissions, or
regional fisheries foundations could play vital roles in prioritizing and coor-
dinating federal fisheries research. These organizations are perceived as
neutral third parties relative to the FMCs, industry groups, environmental
organizations, and NMFS fisheries science centers. A number of New
England Sea Grant programs play a partial role in encouraging and funding
cooperative fisheries research through the Northeast Consortium. Such
neutral third parties could also play a pivotal role in helping NMFS fisheries
science centers implement comprehensive cooperative fisheries research.
However, it should be noted that there still is potential for rifts between
NMFS fisheries science centers, environmental organizations, and FMCs
under this scenario. This is because the decisions would still be made by a
single organization, which may be perceived as not representing all con-
stituents.
OCR for page 60
60 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Scenario 6: Regional Research Boards
An alternative to either the status quo or nonbinding coordinating
policy processes is to establish regional research boards with the authority
to prioritize, coordinate, and evaluate the use of funds allocated to coopera-
tive fisheries research projects (either as earmarks or line items). The re-
gional boards could also assist NMFS in identifying dedicated research (re-
search not currently conducted as cooperative research) that might be good
candidates for cooperative research.
The regional research boards would be nonprofit organizations that
would be funded by the federal government but would also have the ability
to receive private funding from other sources and to support multiyear
projects. At the regional level, this advice would be provided to the NMFS
regional office, regional NMFS fisheries science center, and the appropriate
FMC. At the national level, the advice would be provided to the NMFS
national office from all of the regional boards through a national steering
committee consisting of the chairs of the regional boards. The regional
research boards might have the following responsibilities and structure:
· The regional research boards could be a nonprofit organization
funded by the federal government.
· The regional research boards could be administratively indepen-
dent or could operate under the umbrella of the regional FMCs.
· The regional research boards would be composed of a broad range
of members, including leading scientists, and other constituents, including
representatives from the regional NMFS fisheries science center, state gov-
ernment, industry, academia, regional FMCs, and NGOs. Nonfederal
board members could receive compensation. All board members would be
. . . . . .. . .
expecter ~ to participate in a training program commensurate Wltn their spe-
cific duties and responsibilities.
· The primary function of the regional research boards would be to
prioritize, coordinate, and evaluate all federally funded cooperative fisher-
ies research within each region, consistent with the objectives of the
MSFCMA. The boards would be expected to develop consistent and objec-
tive criteria for selecting and prioritizing cooperative fisheries research ar-
eas, projects, and programs. They would work closely with the regional
NMFS fisheries science center and the regional FMC(s).
· A secondary function would be to evaluate the potential types and
levels of engagement of industry, NGOs, state governments, and other con-
OCR for page 61
SETTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES
61
stituents in order to improve the success, innovativeness, and cost effective-
ness of cooperative fisheries research within the region. The board would
be expected to establish rigorous, incentive-based scientific cooperative re-
search program protocols to meet these objectives.
· The regional research boards would be expected to conduct sympo-
siums and foster other methods of communication to engage all constitu-
ent groups and scientists in sharing research ideas and information.
· The regional research boards could also evaluate all federally funded
research in the region for its potential as cooperative research.
· The regional research boards would receive funding for staff to sup-
port the activities of the regional research boards.
OCR for page 62
venue for give ant! take between the agency and industry ant} an outlet for the kind of practical
advice that fishermen have developed from years on the water.
Disincentives and Constraints
Although less true tociay than as recently as the mid-!990s, cooperative data gathering is
still seen as a change from the status quo, in which NMFS has the principal responsibility for
data collection, analysis, anct interpretation. Overcoming the financial risks, practical
impediments, and bureaucratic obstacles of cooperating with the regulatory agency requires
strong motivation for fishermen. The disincentives are many.
The committee heart! that cooperative research is sometimes looked upon as nothing
more than disaster aid, putting fishermen in the position of being seen as a drain on public
resources. Even if a project is significant, working on cooperative research can sometimes mean
making less than if the same vessel and crew were at work fishing. Ant! just as for agency
scientists, fishermen face the risk that a data collection project conic! prove them wrong.
.
Other Constituent Groups
Although cooperative research is most often conceptualizes! as involving agency and
university scientists with commercial fishermen, other stakeholders, such as environmental
groups, recreational fishermen, and even former NMFS and academic scientists have also
participated.
Environmental Organizations
Several presenters to the committee stated that environmental organizations shouIc! be
involved as partners in cooperative research. To date, their involvement has been limited.
Bernstein ant! {udicello (2000) analyzed six cooperative research projects. Of these, two
involves} environmental groups. Out of eight case studies submitted to the committee for
inclusion in this report, none involved environmental organizations. In those cases involving
environmental organizations, environmentalists were involves! primarily via membership on
advisory stakehoIcler groups. Another way in which environmental groups have participated in
cooperative research is as intermittent observers of the process by going on research voyages.
This happened in a limitecl fashion in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific. An exception to this
limited participation occurred! in Hawaii where the National Audubon Society helped conduct
research and write a research report.
The limited participation of environmental NGOs in the actual execution of the research
cannot be explained by their lack of scientific expertise. Many employ scientists with advanced
degrees. It is important to examine potential causes of their lack of participation given the
importance of participating in fieldwork for the construction of trust among partners (Bernstein
and {udicello 20004.
62
Representative terms from entire chapter:
fisheries research
