|
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 95
8
What Works and Doesn't Work
To this point, this report has provided numerous examples and dis-
cussed a variety of issues concerning cooperative research. In Chapter 1, the
topic of cooperative research was introduced. In Chapters 2 and 3, case
studies were provided to illustrate some experiences with cooperative re-
search both in the United States and in other countries. In Chapter 4 the
setting of cooperative research priorities and processes, along with descrip-
tions of potential mechanisms, was discussed. Funding, legal issues, and
scientific rigor were discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 dealt with the con-
straints and incentives and disincentives for cooperative research and Chap-
ter 7 with issues related to outreach and communication of cooperative
research. In this chapter the information from the previous chapters is
summarized, with focus on what works and doesn't work in cooperative
research.
REASONS FOR SUCCESS
Cooperative research works when scientists and fishermen realize that
each bring valuable tools and experience to the objectives of a research
project. Scientists who are successful in cooperative research realize that
fishermen have knowledge, skills, and/or vessels that would not otherwise
be available and are willing to work with fishermen in order to get the
desired results. The fishermen in these successful projects are also willing to
95
OCR for page 96
96 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
work with the scientists, recognizing that the information collected will not
be used in decision making unless it is scientifically credible.
Fishermen involved in cooperative research often acquire a much
greater understanding and breadth of vision than provided by their fishing
experience. When a fisherman becomes a partner in cooperative research,
he/she often learns to value the scientific method and is better able to dif-
ferentiate valid science from speculation. For a fisherman, having an open
mind often means putting his fishing knowledge temporarily "at arms
length" while learning about the science objective and the analytical tools
involved with the work and then synthesizing his own experiences with
that new point of view.
lust as fishermen can achieve a new perspective on scientific research,
scientists can also learn to value the knowledge of fishermen. When coop-
erative research engages fishermen as experts, the information flow will not
just be from the scientists to fishermen, but scientists will learn the value of
enhancing their knowledge with the perspectives of fishermen.
Participants in cooperative research projects have explained that the
whole of the participants' knowledge is often greater than the sum of its
parts. That is, ideas and understanding arise where fishermen and scientists
work together in a single project that neither group would develop on its
own through fishing or fishery-independent research.
A prerequisite of successful cooperative research is that all participants
thoroughly understand that they are involved in scientific research, even
though fishermen may be responsible for much of the design and execution
of that research. It must meet scientific standards if it is to be useful for
management decisions. Cooperative research projects must apply scientific
rigor with the same standards that are applied to traditional (dedicated)
research if they are to have credibility. From the inception to its conclusion,
the supervisors of cooperative research projects need to emphasize this need
to all participants and make sure the project will produce scientifically
defensible results.
Cooperative research projects have worked when the participants fully
cooperate from the start of the project to its finish. In the initial step, fish-
ermen and scientists acknowledge that a problem or opportunity exists that
needs to be addressed. Second, they determine that working together coop-
eratively is the most effective means to solving it. They see that the involve-
ment of fishermen along with the scientists is essential to success of that
research. Third, they use each other's expertise in science and on the fishing
grounds to design the most appropriate and practical research protocol.
OCR for page 97
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
97
Fourth, they execute the project according to the original plan and within
scientifically valid guidelines. They do this by extensive communication
among all parties at each step of the project. Finally, they properly interpret
and distribute the results of their project to the affected parties and man-
agement agencies. Likewise, the government, or the regulatory agencies of
the fisheries involved, also agrees on the cooperative process as the best
method to solve a recognized problem. The agency supports the project to
its conclusion, both administratively and financially.
In Chapters 2 and 3, examples and case studies of cooperative research
illustrating a broad range in levels of cooperation were provided. The ex-
amples and case studies ranged from no government participation (except
in the review process) to industry taking the lead on developing cooperative
research but where government scientists participated in the data collec-
tion, to cooperative research dominated by government scientists in plan-
ning and execution but including fishermen in some way in the execution
of the project. There does not appear to be any "best" way. Different ap-
proaches have been successful for different types of problems in different
institutional settings, but the overriding theme is the desire to provide im-
proved information for decision makers that meets accepted standards of
design, program execution, and analysis.
The Motivation of Fishermen
There are a number of reasons why fishermen may be motivated to
participate in cooperative research. Fishermen may perceive a threat to their
fishery from pending management action. When dolphin bycatch mortal-
ity in the tuna seine fleet precipitated widespread boycott of tuna products
by the general public, eastern Pacific tuna seiners were motivated to de-
velop dolphin avoidance techniques in conjunction with the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission, starting in the 1 980s. Potential sanc-
tions of the Endangered Species Act likewise threatened to close the North
Pacific longline fishery in the late 1990s due to bycatch of an endangered
species, the short-tailed albatross. Fishermen did not have to be convinced
that this was a problem and to seek a solution.
Other projects arise from financial motivations. In 2001 a mid-Atlantic
surf clam fisherman thought that the government used faulty stock assess-
ment techniques. If the current level of effort was resulting in underharvest,
there was additional resource available to the fishermen. If the current level
of effort was resulting in overharvesting, the resource in which they have a
OCR for page 98
98 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
long-term stake could be in jeopardy. In this case, the fishermen approached
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and convinced them of the
problem and the need to work together to find a solution. The development
of the New Zealand rock lobster logbook program was similarly motivated
by a desire of the fishermen to "prove" the status of the resource. Individual
fishermen's observations or logbooks were not considered adequate as input
to the stock assessment process, so the fishermen arranged for a scientifi-
cally designed program that now forms the basis of the stock assessment.
Another motivation, one most easily misunderstood or easily dis-
missed, stems from the fishing community's desire to investigate alternate
hypotheses (to what management or scientists may suggest) or simply a
desire to improve the scientific information used in managing fishery re-
sources. Sometimes the "best available information" may be significantly
improved upon at an acceptable cost. That cost-benefit analysis has to be
conducted by fishermen and scientists together. For the fishing community
it is an issue of self-determination. In the northeast United States stock
boundaries for codfish were established decades ago from tagging studies,
growth rates, and parasite loading. Currently, management recognizes a
Georges Bank cod stock and a Gulf of Maine cod stock with distinctly
different biological reference points and management strategies. Many fish-
ermen contend that mixing rates are a significant factor at different life
stages and confound these established stock models. Different stock bound-
aries or a more complex stock model would alter the present management
regimen. A series of port meetings documented fishermen's observations,
and a task force was convened to design a comprehensive tagging program.
Starting in 2003, this program will be carried out with cooperation of fish-
ermen from four states and the Canadian maritimes.
The Motivation of Scientists
There are often far more fishermen than scientists willing to partici-
pate in cooperative research. Cooperative research is often seen in the aca-
demic community as not being "legitimate" research. In addition, scientists
involved in cooperative research must make additional commitments of
time and effort to foster good working relationships and true cooperation
with their fishermen partners. Agency and university scientists need to pub-
lish if they want promotion and tenure. If cooperative research requires a
greater time commitment and is difficult to publish, many academic scien-
tists will not participate. Agencies and academic departments involved in
OCR for page 99
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
99
fisheries research need to take account of these challenges. This can be done
by not using the same evaluation process for promotion and tenure that is
used for research faculty and staff not involved in cooperative research: one
that accounts for the additional time commitments and impediments to
publishing.
Another possible remedy would be the establishment of a scientific
journal of cooperative research. This option could provide an incentive for
more scientists to participate in cooperative research, but it could also serve
to further marginalize cooperative research from traditional research. Such
a journal would need to have a rapid turnaround time, and it might be
possible to have the peer review of the cooperative research projects serve as
the peer review for the reports and the reports then published online with
rapid turnaround. An alternative is to encourage scientific journals to pub-
lish more cooperative research.
Scientists who have done successful cooperative research often state
that the satisfaction comes from factors other than producing publications.
The scientists may simply enjoy life on the ocean and time away from the
office or lab. They may simply like to work with fishermen or seek the
satisfaction of working on cooperative research and knowing that a real and
immediate problem is being solved through the research. The results of a
cooperative research project could provide the basis for changing laws or
regulations, prevent a fishery closure, allow a fishery to function without
onerous sanctions, or conserve fish and other marine life.
Scientists can have a financial motivation as well. Chartering a fishing
boat may be less expensive than chartering a dedicated research vessel. They
may choose to charter a fishing boat because the cost may be charged to
different funding sources or can be funded by catch. For decades the Inter-
national Pacific Halibut Commission has chartered fishing vessels with fish
caught on charters not only paying for the charter expense but also sub-
sidizing the administrative costs of the commission itself.
Appropriateness of Cooperative Research
Once a problem is identified and defined, the choice of whether the
research project is conducted solely by scientists or cooperatively with fish-
ermen depends on both the scientists and the fishermen. If the fishermen
have a complaint about research that NMFS is already doing, they natu-
rally want to show the government how to do the work more effectively. In
the case of the surf clam fishery, the fishermen questioned the efficiency of
OCR for page 100
100 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
the dredge used by NMFS to measure the surf clam recruitment and bio-
mass. They wanted to use their own boats and design a more effective
dredge for research. In this case, the fishermen's incentive to be part of a
research project was to point out the shortcomings of existing fishery-inde-
pendent research. This was also the case in several other examples, includ-
ing New Zealand rock lobster, Canadian West Coast groundfish and East
Coast halibut.
The North Pacific longliners likewise wanted to be part of research on
seabird bycatch. In their case, the research was based on techniques of bird
deterrence that already had been developed. Fishery-independent research
would have been a redundant exercise. What the fishery needed were data
on how well the techniques that they already had in the actual fishery
worked. The volunteer vessels for the program also received an incentive.
The time spent on the survey fulfilled the required quarterly observer cov-
erage for each vessel, and the observers were paid by the research grant
(instead of by each vessel).
The Pacific tuna seiners had no option. They either had to figure out
how to fish without catching as many dolphins or live with large closed
areas and an actively promoted boycott of their product. Since their prob-
lem related to fishing practices, the best way to solve the problem was to
work on those practices while fishing and then effectively share, analyze,
and utilize those solutions.
Long-term monitoring projects and ecological research are generally
less well suited to cooperative projects, at least as they are currently funded.
The budget stream is too unpredictable and such projects require commit-
ments over long periods of time. There is not as much motivation or incen-
tive for industry to participate because there is no immediate return. On
the other hand, cooperative biological surveys and research on abundance
and density of fish provide not only the immediate incentive to fishermen
of money earned by working on a charter, but also the possibility of changes
in management measures that may benefit both fishermen and the fishery
resources on which they depend. A project is more likely to gain voluntary
industry participation when there are appropriate financial incentives or
expectations of later economic gains due to research findings.
Working Together
Once the scientists and fishermen have decided that cooperative re-
search is the best course, they must decide how best to use each other's
OCR for page 101
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
101
expertise to best advantage. The fishermen are the experts on the fishing
grounds; they understand the realities of working at sea. The scientists are
the experts on experiment design and data gathering; they understand good
scientific technique. Blending these two different points of view requires
open-mindedness and tolerance, with trust and respect for everyone in-
volved. Both the fishermen and scientists have to be willing not only to
communicate with someone from outside their normal experience, they
also have to provide and to accept diverse input and points of view. Both
scientists and fishermen can benefit from this cross-fertilization of their
OCR for page 102
102 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
respective ideas. In order for this kind of brainstorming to succeed, all
parties must acknowledge each other's value. Ground rules of basic cour-
tesy allow all participants to think and to speak freely, to take best advan-
tage of everyone's expertise (Box 8-11.
Though the fishermen may give insight to a scientist about the design
of an experiment, and a scientist may provide a perspective a fisherman has
never considered, all participants in a cooperative research project also need
to understand the limitations of their roles. Fishermen will be running
their operations as a well-controlled scientific project. Scientists will be
running an experiment on or collecting data from a real fishing platform.
The fishermen must understand the parameters of the scientific work and
the scientists must accept the capabilities and limitations of the fishing
operations. Each side's input is valuable to the other, but the roles and
limitations of each participant need to be clear from the beginning.
The model of NMFS scientists taking the lead in design and fishermen
the lead in execution is far from universal or mandatory. NMFS is not the
only science provider in the United States and in many cases university
scientists have been heavily involved in the scientific design of cooperative
research projects. In New Zealand and western Canada, numerous projects
have been 100 percent industry designed and run relying on scientists from
universities, the private sector, or in several cases in New Zealand govern-
ment laboratories in Australia.
Project Management
Successful cooperative research projects often use a project leader who
acts as a coordinator of the many roles involved in cooperative research.
Initially, someone can help industry articulate the questions they have about
research design and funding sources. Often, the time horizons of funding,
management needs, data requirements, and priority setting are not aligned.
Often, one knowledgeable individual needs to know ways to set the indus-
try process in motion prior to the arrival of research funding. Through
early planning, this individual could also improve opportunities for indus-
. . . . . . .
try participation in priority setting.
A project leader can keep the goals of the cooperative research team
clear and its purpose focused and defined. This person can also be a peace-
maker and conciliator among divergent points of view in the design and
implementation of the project. Mainly though, since communication
throughout the project is essential to the project's success, someone who
OCR for page 103
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
103
feels comfortable communicating with both fishermen and scientists is the
most effective link to both sides of a cooperative research project. From the
inception of the project and its initial planning stages to the setting of the
techniques to be used in the research, the execution of the project and the
deployment of boats and scientists, the assimilation of data at the conclu-
sion ofthe project, and the analysis and distribution ofthose data, all parties
involved need to communicate clearly and continually. One coordinator
who thoroughly understands the importance of proper scientific work can
be the hub of that communication.
an. . . . .
1 his communicator can also be someone who maintains realistic ex-
pectations among the participants and the overseeing agency. This person
can select the best and most practical ideas from all the participants of the
project, including the fisheries managers, the scientists, and the fisherman,
and assess which ones can be accomplished. Perhaps the scientists want
more replications of a certain type of data than fishermen can accomplish
in a day. Perhaps the fishermen are expecting more certainty in the results
. . . . . .. . . . as. . .. ... . . .
than the scientists believe they can achieve. 1 trough responsibility should
reside in one individual as the lead principal investigator, the most success-
ful cooperative research results from an integrated team effort. The genius
of cooperative research is that it attempts to harness divergent viewpoints
to a common goal. Attention should be paid to mutual learning among
team members and to defining roles based on expertise. More complex
cooperative research projects often employ a small multidisciplinary board
of directors or advisory group. Principal investigators in these situations
should see themselves as a team leader and be generous when sharing credit.
As with any research, the quality of the work is only as good as the
science employed. Successful cooperative research employs scientific stan-
dards as rigorous as those expected of any research. The scientists working
with the fishermen need to be as scrupulous in their work as if they were
doing research independently. From the design of the project to its imple-
mentation, the research needs to follow accepted scientific methods and
standards. The scientists involved must design and execute research that
will stand the scrutiny of peer review, just as any other research should.
Successful cooperative research requires fishermen who are professional
operators and who run their businesses in a professional manner. They have
to understand that their operations may have strict operating protocols.
These restrictions can require them to operate differently but still work
efficiently. Fishermen must be able to fish in a practical manner within the
parameters of the research project. They also must be accountable to con-
OCR for page 104
104 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
tracts and other obligations, must provide a safe working environment, and
must follow strict guidelines while effectively using their fishing gear. Most
important, the vessels used in successful cooperative research must be safe
and seaworthy. lust as vessels used for fishery-independent research must
follow the highest standards of safety, so must vessels used for cooperative
research.
For cooperative research projects to be successful, scientists and the
agency (or agencies) administrators must make a commitment to coopera-
tive research. Cooperative research requires secured funding that is avail-
able from the planning to the completion of the research. Even in extreme
cases where industry designs and operates the project, the management
agencies must have a mechanism for accepting, evaluating, and incorporat-
ing the appropriate information provided.
Agencies that run successful cooperative research projects should have
"cooperative research-friendly" policies. The personalities of scientists do-
ing cooperative research are different from those of scientists who work
exclusively in a lab or a classroom, and the overseeing agency needs to
acknowledge and support this kind of scientist in order for cooperative
research to have the greatest opportunity to succeed. Cases of scientists in
need of material or information and in extenuating circumstances resulting
from unforeseen circumstances at sea illustrate the need for the employers
of scientists to provide cooperation and support in order to keep the project
intact. The agency must be as committed as the scientist and likewise must
be as flexible. Administrative infrastructure must have the capacity to handle
. , .
cooperative partnersnlps.
Leadership support of scientists and managers who foster cooperative
research is critical. This includes rewarding cooperative research with pro-
fessional advancement and acknowledgment of the increased effort it takes
to succeed in joint endeavors.
Consistent, basic standards and criteria for awarding grants, distribut-
ing money, selecting cooperative partners, choosing vessels, and deciding
other aspects of cooperative projects, such as the basic authority to conduct
such work, would shield the agency from challenges that the various coop-
erative research programs are inconsistent and therefore unfair. Further,
communication among NMFS headquarters, regional offices, and the fish-
eries science centers should include sharing of problem-solving tactics and
successful experiences. One region of the country need not be "reinventing
the wheel" that another part of the country has already developed.
Successful cooperative research programs often require clear, complete
OCR for page 105
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
105
contracts, written from the inception of the program, that define in com-
plete detail the expectations from all parties as well as the compensation the
fishermen will receive. These contracts spell out all the details of everyone's
obligations and duties. This kind of contract ensures compliance by the
fishermen with the project's protocols, prevents disputes about roles and
duties, and provides assurances for the fishermen about their compensa-
tlon.
The agency in charge of successful cooperative research also must be
realistic about fishermen's compensation. They must be accountable and
timely in their payment. A program that does not pay fishermen in a timely
fashion will quickly lose the support of those fishermen. The fishermen
who participate must also understand that the pay for their work is not
renegotiable once the contract is signed.
Successful cooperative research requires that scientists, fishermen, and
the overseeing agency be responsible and accountable in ways not normally
required in order to maintain the focus and to address the original purpose
of the research. In the execution of cooperative research, scientists must
ensure that the experimental procedures are followed, despite any pressure
to do otherwise. Fishermen cannot "improvise" on or vary from the experi-
mental procedures in order to make their operation run more smoothly.
They must follow through by executing on the fishing grounds the com-
mitments they have made for the project. As with any research, there may
need to be some adjustments to the experimental procedures to address
design flaws or information needs. These changes must be agreed to by all
participants. Further, the overseeing agency must utilize the results of the
cooperative research appropriately. If a management agency has requested
the results, it needs to follow through by assessing those results and using
them appropriately.
Communication of Results
Proper and timely dissemination of the results from cooperative re-
search projects is essential. The first step of this dissemination process is to
have the results peer reviewed to validate the work. It is important that
before any data or analysis reach anyone outside the project it first be fully
analyzed and validated, through the peer review process and then put into
final form. Once the review is completed, the results can be distributed to
fishery managers, fishermen, and the public at large. If the cooperative
research is based on a management need, it is especially important that the
OCR for page 106
106 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
results be fully validated before managers receive them. There also may be
pressure to release preliminary data or results prior to the completion of the
peer review process. While this should be prevented, all participants need
to be prepared to address possible interpretations of the leaked data and
results and emphasize the importance of waiting until completion of the
project (including peer review) prior to using the data and results.
Since an important benefit of cooperative research can be the fostering
of healthy relations between NMFS and the fishing community, it is also
important that the fishermen have full access to the results of the coopera-
tive research through full distribution of the results to fishermen's associa-
tions and the press.
If the project is to be effective, the public and fishermen, especially
those fishermen involved in the project, need to know that good research
does not necessarily produce good news. Fishermen need to be able to do
their part of the research without prejudice and must be willing to live with
the results.
REASONS FOR FAILURE
Cooperative research can fail for the same reasons that any research
can fail. If the science is not done well or if the data are poor, neither will
be of much value. If the purpose of a research project is unclear or too
broad, the results can be meaningless. If a project is not adequately funded,
it may not be completed. These vulnerabilities are not unique to coopera-
tive research. They apply to fishery-independent research as well. But the
special conditions of cooperative research make it vulnerable to particular
kinds of failure.
Lack of coordinating control is one way that a cooperative research
project can fail. With the many different parties involved in cooperative
research, any participant wavering from protocols can provide bad data.
Cooperative research "can be frustrated or even destroyed by the actions of
only a few individuals" (Leeman, 19981. If quality data are not collected all
the way through the project, or at least consistently, the project is vulner-
able to failure. The proper procedures for data gathering must be estab-
lished early, communicated fully and repeatedly, and overseen properly, or
the project can fail.
Another failure of control of cooperative research is when fishing done as
research "assumers] an economic life of its own . . . [when an] experimental
fishery [is] regarded as a necessary part ofthe . . . industry" (Leeman, 19981.
OCR for page 107
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
107
In other words, the industry quickly becomes used to another source of
income and resists, through fishing and through the political process, relin-
quishing that income. This can be prevented by a clear, complete statement
of purpose to which all parties agree at the outset of the cooperative re-
search. When the project ends, the industry has to be prepared to stop any
extra fishing that the project may have provided. Once again, if this point is
made clear early and communicated regularly, the problem can be avoided.
The results of research are often not simple. This is especially true if
the cooperative research deals with a fishery with any allocation fights be-
tween user groups. Conclusions of a cooperative research project need to be
carefully elucidated in order to draw accurate and proper conclusions. If
unprocessed results of a project reach the public before the final reviews on
that project are complete and validated, that project's intent is in jeopardy.
What was intended to bring order to a problem can instead provoke chaos.
Fisheries with allocation wars between user groups make cooperative
research difficult. Without careful screening of suggestions for cooperative
research, there is a risk of doing research that may further the bargaining
position of one specific user group. A group of fishermen may want to do
research as a political attack on another group that targets the same stock of
fish, with the result that the first group attains some allocation priority to
those fish, or fishermen may oppose a specific proposal for research on their
gear if they fear the data obtained may be used against them in allocation
battles. For example, the results of the West Coast trawl bycatch study have
often been used by users of other gear types as arguments against trawl
allocation, leading some trawlers to question the usefulness of such studies
for their political position in allocation battles. Allocation battles can ruin
a project by degrading the commitment to good science and the proper
gathering of data.
Cooperative research will effectively fail, no matter how good the sci-
entific work is, if the administration required to handle the results of the
work is insufficient. For fiscal years 1999 through 2003, the New England
region has spent or obligated $7.9 million for cooperative research projects.
With even more appropriations due in the future, regional officials have
stated that they currently are unprepared to handle the amount of informa-
tion from the resultant cooperative research. Results of successful projects
will be useless if the management agencies cannot assimilate them as
required. Indiscriminately providing money for cooperative research will
not work if money and support are not provided appropriately to all parts
of the system.
OCR for page 108
108 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
MAKING COOPERATIVE RESEARCH WORK
The extra education and administration needed for cooperative
research will require extra work and vigilance on the part of NMFS, as has
been noted earlier in this report. But a successful NMFS cooperative re-
search program can provide solutions to problems that directly affect the
agency.
The first of these problems is money. Budgets are shrinking, while the
duties of NMFS are expanding and becoming more diverse and demand-
ing. Conservation imperatives and management mandates are not as simple
as they once were. Increasingly, rigorous standards of overfishing, bycatch,
and ecosystem management require better management tools to meet their
requirements. NMFS needs more research in order to develop these man-
agement tools, and in some cases cooperative research is the most cost-
effective kind of research.
NMFS has to spend enormous amounts of manpower and money on
recent litigation brought by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and
fishermen. Cooperative research has effectively thwarted lawsuits when it
has been a tool to target a specific contentious issue and has established a
basis for making rational, effective decisions that can resolve a particular
issue (e.g., albatrosses in Alaska, stock assessments in surf clams). The effect
of the cooperative research is more than just providing good data. The
process also can relieve the tension between the parties involved in the
litigation by the act of working toward a common solution.
If NMFS can use cooperative research effectively for these purposes, it
follows that the fishery management council (FMC) process will also ben-
efit. By shedding light on contentious fisheries issues, cooperative research
can provide a lubricant to the politics of the fisheries management process.
If the parties involved in any FMC battle have worked together to under-
stand an issue, they often have a less hostile, more understanding view of
each other's position. Not only can cooperative research provide quality
information with which an FMC can make decisions, but these decisions
also can be made in a more conciliatory, less politically charged environment.
The FMCs were designed to be an open process, with direct participa-
tion of fishermen, scientists, and the public in the crafting of regulations.
In practice, however, this sometimes is not the case if only because of a lack
of understanding. Fishermen often need to know more of the management
process and scientific principles on which management decisions are based.
Many managers and scientists have not had direct experience in commer-
OCR for page 109
WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK
109
cial fisheries and often lack basic knowledge of fisheries under their review.
Cooperative research provides a venue for helping to solve this problem.
Cooperative research is often cited as a means for fishermen to trust
NMFS science, or at least to trust the results of research with which they
are involved. When one considers the costs of a lack of trust the costs in
manpower and resources of a politically besieged management system-
then effort expended to bolster science for the sake of building political will
is worth doing. Trust has real value.
Cooperative research increases the knowledge of fishing communities
of the processes that govern their fortunes. Well-informed fishing commu-
nities tend to be supportive of management and conservation, while fishing
communities that are poorly informed tend to be reactionary and resistant.
Though most cooperative research has been done without the participa-
tion of NGOs, they could be enlisted as participants and provide another
point of view for the design of cooperative research. Since many of the
problems of fisheries stem from environmental concerns, the participation
of NGOs could provide an opportunity to directly address those concerns.
The resulting partnerships could be another way to defuse potentially con-
tentious and litigious issues. If the NGOs have the same understanding of a
problem as the fishermen and the scientists, NMFS will have a better abil-
ity to reach a consensus with all these groups without going to court.
The indiscriminate use of cooperative research poses some dangers.
"Science for hire" with a preconceived agenda could pass for cooperative
research if the screening and review process is not sufficiently rigorous.
Though legitimate cooperative research can have the benefit of uniting
people, misused or shoddy cooperative research could further divide people,
cause more hostility, and be an unsound basis for management.
Cooperative research possesses potential problems in other ways. Re-
sults of cooperative research may prove that a scientist with a long history
of a certain point of view has been mistaken. Scientists must be willing to
accept that result if the cooperative research is valid. Fishermen may find
that the results of cooperative research show that a stock of fish may be
weaker or a certain gear may be more destructive than they thought. They
may face restrictions they don't like as a result of cooperative research. As
with any research, if the work is done well, the results must be taken for
what they are. If fishermen realize this and are favored by the status quo,
they may resist cooperative research. If scientists realize this and are too
proud to undergo scrutiny in the open forum of cooperative research, they
may resist cooperative research as well.
OCR for page 110
Representative terms from entire chapter:
marine fisheries
