Cooperative Research and Cooperative Management: 

A Review with Recommendations 

Cooperative Research and Cooperative Management Working Group

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-156

August 2015

Cooperative Research and Cooperative Management: 

A Review with Recommendations 

Submitted to NOAA Fisheries Leadership by the Cooperative Research and 

Cooperative Management Working Group:

Sally Bibb, Alaska Regional Office

Scott Bloom, Pacific Islands Regional Office

Ayeisha Brinson, Science and Technology

Mark Chandler, Science and Technology

Guy Davenport, Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Kelly Denit, Sustainable Fisheries

Gerard Dinardo, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

Joshua Gange, Office of Policy

Steve Giordano, Southeast Regional Office

Alexis Gutierrez, Protected Resources

John Hoey, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Steve Ignell, Alaska Science Center

Rosemary Kosaka, Southwest Fisheries Science Center

Caroline Park, Fisheries & Protected Resources Section, NOAA General Counsel

Tauna Rankin, Habitat Conservation

Heather Sagar, Policy Office and Working Group Lead

Ryan Silva, Greater Atlantic Regional Office

Interview Helpers:

Brian Langseth, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

Rita Hawkins, West Coast Regional Offices

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-156

August 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny S. Pritzker, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator

 

National Marine Fisheries Service

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Recommended citation:

Cooperative research and cooperative management working group. 2015. Cooperative research 

and cooperative management: A review with recommendations. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-156 78pp. 

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Heather Sagar, Office of Policy

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC 3 Room 14470

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at:

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/
iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. 1

Cooperative Management .................................................................................................................. 5

What Is Cooperative Management?............................................................................................................. 5

A Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................................ 6

Co-management between Federal, State, and Tribal governments............................................................. 7

Legal Authorities........................................................................................................................................... 8

Cooperative Management Examples for NOAA .........................................................................................11

Cooperative Research........................................................................................................................13

Legal Authority............................................................................................................................................13

Project Identification...................................................................................................................................14

NOAA Cooperative Research Examples......................................................................................................15

Analysis...................................................................................................................................................17

Successful/unsuccessful attributes of cooperative management arrangements ......................................17

Internal Interviews..................................................................................................................................17

External Interviews..................................................................................................................................20

Successful/unsuccessful attributes of cooperative research projects/programs.......................................23

Internal analysis......................................................................................................................................23

External interview ...................................................................................................................................24

Under the current laws and regulations, what can NOAA Fisheries do to advance the use of cooperative 

management? .............................................................................................................................................26

Internal Interviews..................................................................................................................................26

External Interviews..................................................................................................................................28

Under the current laws and regulations, what can NOAA Fisheries do to advance cooperative research?

....................................................................................................................................................................30

Internal Interviews..................................................................................................................................30

External interviews..................................................................................................................................35

How does Cooperative Research feed into Cooperative Management? ...................................................38

Internal Interviews..................................................................................................................................38

External Interviews..................................................................................................................................40

Recommendations to Leadership on Cooperative Management and Cooperative 

Research.................................................................................................................................................42

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................46

Appendix 1: Interview Questions ..................................................................................................47

Appendix 2: Letter from Stakeholders .......................................................................................50

Appendix 3: DOC Legal Compendium...........................................................................................56

1 

Executive Summary

For several years, NOAA Fisheries has carried out cooperative management and cooperative 

research under several statutes. A diverse group of environmental non-governmental 

organizations (ENGO), fishing industry, and academic stakeholders sent a letter to Dr. Sullivan, 

NOAA Administrator, in November 2013 requesting that NOAA strengthen the use of comanagement in fisheries management. The letter writers suggested that co-management could 

be a means to bring new resources to fisheries management, enhance NOAA’s capabilities, and 

improve stakeholder relationships. 

Specifically, the stakeholders recommended that NOAA devolve more substantial research and 

management roles to states and stakeholders. In addition, they requested that NOAA develop 

guidance for (1) cooperative research and management authorized under section 318 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (focus of this document), 

(2) confidentiality of fisheries data, (3) electronic monitoring, and (4) cost recovery. NOAA 

Fisheries Leadership responded to this letter in writing, held a roundtable with all the letter 

writers, and held three separate 1-hour meetings on confidentiality of fisheries data, electronic 

monitoring, and cost recovery. 

In addition, the NOAA Fisheries Leadership Council also requested a broader review than the 

stakeholders requested, with the focus being on the agency’s co-management and cooperative 

research activities undertaken pursuant to NOAA Fisheries’ major statutes (e.g., Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and MSA). A NOAA Fisheries

working group conducted this review and also interviewed 50 NOAA Fisheries staff and nine 

external stakeholders on the successes and challenges of these existing activities. This White 

Paper provides an overview of those activities to date and provides recommendations to the 

NOAA Fisheries Leadership Council on how to move forward. The paper is divided into the 

following sections: 

• Review of relevant literature and legal mandates.

• Examples of NOAA Fisheries’ existing activities.

• Analysis of internal and external interviews.

• Recommendations for NOAA Fisheries’ future engagement in cooperative management 

and cooperative research.

Given the various definitions and understandings of “co-management,” this White Paper uses 

(and recommends use of) the term “cooperative management,” except when the former term 

is used in literature cited or by interviewees. Based on its analysis, the working group 

determined that successful cooperative management and cooperative research activities have

several key attributes. These include: 

• A clear legal framework. 

• An organized stakeholder group, with leadership. 

• Clear roles for partners, stakeholders, and NOAA Fisheries personnel. 

• Clear goals. 

• Buy-in of partners and stakeholders. 
2 

• Trust between stakeholders and NOAA Fisheries personnel. 

• Transparent and clearly understood decision-making process. 

• Strong and regular communication. 

• Matching the scale of the cooperative management system with the distribution and 

mobility of the managed species. 

• Use of results to make fishery management decisions.

• Funding. 

The Working Group found that cooperative research can support cooperative management, but 

is not a pre-requisite for cooperative management arrangements to be established. Further, 

cooperative research is often conducted independently of a cooperative management 

framework. 

The Working Group recommends several ways that NOAA Fisheries can use existing legislative 

mandates and resources to build upon current cooperative management and cooperative 

research efforts. These recommendations include the following (more detail can be found on 

page 40): 

Communication:

1) The HQ Communications Office, Regional Offices, and Science Centers should review the

specific communication mechanisms and platforms being used to assist agency partners and 

stakeholders interested in learning more about participating in cooperative management 

(e.g., regional points of contact, information on how to obtain an EFP, grants, etc.). 

2) NOAA Fisheries Leadership should create or facilitate more opportunities to engage possible 

cooperative research/cooperative management partners. 

Cooperative Management Policy:

1) Provide guidance to NOAA Fisheries Employees, partners, and stakeholders on the range of 

cooperative management tools that NOAA Fisheries has available. 

2) NOAA Fisheries Policy Office should evaluate our partnership with Sea Grant. 

3) Improve in-reach by training all appropriate NOAA Fisheries staff on the common 

understanding of co-management, cooperative management, and cooperative research and 

the suite of tools available to NOAA Fisheries under the MMPA, ESA, and MSA. 

4) NOAA Fisheries Leadership and their staff should develop and maintain good working 

relationships with cooperative management partners and be accountable for the success of 

those relationships. 

5) NOAA Fisheries Leadership and the NOAA Fisheries Office of Management and Budget 

should continue to push for statutory language needed to accept private donations and 

determine the proper guidelines regarding the use of private funds. 

6) Employees and cooperative management partners should establish clear objectives and 

expectations of their respective roles, as well as regularly review whether there are 

challenges that need to be addressed.

7) Regional Offices should explore whether NEPA review/analysis for EFPs and grants can be 

streamlined.
3 

Cooperative Research:

1) Request the Science Board to review how Cooperative Research feeds into management 

priorities. If necessary, engage the Regulatory Board.

2) The Cooperative Research Program should ensure that cooperative research projects are 

aligned with management priorities and focus on science gaps (e.g., habitat science and its 

integration into stock assessments). 

3) The Cooperative Research Program and other cooperative research activities (i.e., 

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants and BREP) should ensure that both stakeholders and NOAA 

Fisheries are involved from start to finish to set goals and objectives to ensure results have 

the best chance to be used for science and management purposes. Likewise, it is important 

to have the appropriate suite of expertise engaged in a given cooperative research project 

to ensure that the resulting data can best be used toward practical applications for science 

and management purposes. For example, if a project addresses a social science concern, it 

is vital that social scientists be included in the design, implementation, and analysis of that 

project. 

4) NOAA Fisheries Leadership should ensure cooperative research is visible in Science Center 

planning and program reviews, engage their staff, and be accountable for good working 

relationships with cooperative research partners.

5) NOAA Fisheries should encourage peer review products as a preferred outcome of the 

research activities. Peer reviewed products can provide maximum impact in support of 

NOAA Fisheries science (e.g., stock assessments) and management priorities. If possible, 

NOAA Fisheries should also aid authors in publishing so as not to extend the publication 

periods. 

6) The Cooperative Research Program should review existing long-term/multi-year cooperative 

research projects and develop recommendations for how to maintain data streams and

transition funding for these projects to other sources (internal or external).

7) Working with NOAA Office of General Counsel, develop a way to help program offices to 

quickly identify which legal authorities and types of agreements might be relevant to 

cooperative research activities with external partners (academics, industry, NGOs, etc.).

8) NOAA Fisheries should conduct cooperative research, such as testing new fishing gear,

within MSA established fishing mortality limits and consistent with other applicable law, 

such as the ESA and MMPA. A variety of mechanisms have been developed and should be 

applied to allow such cooperative research to move forward and not impede partnerships.

Metrics:

1) NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Science and Technology should survey external partners on their 

perceptions of NOAA’s cooperative management and cooperative research programs and 

re-survey them in 2 to 3 years to see if perceptions have changed. The survey should be reevaluated as needed.

2) NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Science and Technology should review 2014 cooperative research 

program projects and determine how many of them supported management decisions. 

3) In FY16 develop reporting tool that tracks how each Cooperative Research Program project 

fits into the Agency’s science based management of living marine resources.
4 

Process for Sharing White Paper:

1) This white paper was shared for review and comment on the recommendations with the 

following advisory groups: 

• Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

• Council Coordination Committee

• Marine Mammal Commission

2) Share the final white paper with all internal and external interviewees.
5 

Cooperative Management

What Is Cooperative Management?

Traditional “co-management” refers to shared decision-making with government devolving 

(i.e., transferring or delegating) some of its power to others.1

 The term has been used in a 

broader sense to refer to a variety of arrangements, with different degrees of power sharing, 

for joint decision-making by the state and community or user groups, about a set of resources 

or area.2

 No single standardized definition is used for fisheries or other natural resource 

sectors. The World Bank defines co-management as the sharing of responsibilities, rights, and 

duties between the primary stakeholders, particularly local communities and the nation state.3

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that co-management is 

typically defined as a partnership arrangement between government and the local community 

of resource users, sometimes also connected with agents such as NGOs, research institutions, 

and other resource stakeholders, to share the responsibility and authority for management of a 

resource.4 

A major component of cooperative management is not just management of the resource, but 

also of the relationships among users, regulators, and other stakeholders. The logic is that 

governance systems that combine state control with local, decentralized decision-making and 

accountability combine the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each.5

 As described 

below, there is a continuum or spectrum of resource management arrangements,6 including 

traditional governance, partnerships, collaborations, cooperative activities, self-governance, 

and mechanisms for user group participation in decision-making.

7

 

NOAA Fisheries already engages in many arrangements along this continuum. For example, the 

MSA established Regional Fishery Management Councils, who are responsible for developing 

fishery management plans and submitting them to NOAA Fisheries for approval. NOAA 

Fisheries, the states, and federally recognized tribes have special roles and responsibilities with 

regard to the management of marine resources, including protected species. In addition, the 

fishing industry is actively engaged in fisheries data collection through cooperative research 

 

1 Berkes, F. 1994. Co-management: bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives, 22(2-3): 18-20. 2 Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social 

learning. J Environmental Management 90:1692 at 1693. 3 The World Bank (1999) Report from the International Workshop on Community-Based Natural Resource 

Management.

4 FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16625/en

5 See, Carlsson L & Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environmental 

Management 75:65 at 66

6 It has been suggested that co-management should be viewed as a process of resource management that will 

adjust over time in response to changes in trust, credibility, legitimacy, and success of the partners and 

arrangements. Pomeroy R. Fisheries Co-Management. Connecticut Sea Grant Publication Number CTSG-04-01 7 See McCay BJ & Jentoft S (1996) From the Bottom Up: Participatory Issues in Fisheries Management. Society & 

Natural Resources 9:237 at 238 (discussing advisory committees, management councils, and other bodies 

facilitating communication between government and industry).
6 

initiatives. For purposes of this White Paper, “cooperative management” is being used in the 

broad sense to refer to arrangements along the continuum, except for cooperative research 

which is treated separately. In our recommendations we have outlined the continuum and its

end points. 

A Review of the Literature

The literature on fisheries cooperative management spans several decades but its existence as 

a management regime predates these publications.

8 These examples often describe and 

analyze smaller communities with long traditions of fishery resource use, which often organize 

and self-manage their resources in the absence of, or in cooperation with, a central governing 

body (federal, state, provincial, etc.). 

Ostrom9, 10 was one of the first U.S. scholars to write about the ability of resource users within 

communities (whether defined by ethnicity, geography, or other characteristic) to self-organize 

and manage common pool resources. At the time, the prevailing theories focused on resource 

management regimes that established private property rights. Ostrom identified 10 variables 

that aid in identifying the likelihood that a community of resource users will self-organize 

toward the management of a shared resource (Figure 1). Social cohesion and mutually agreed 

upon rules and norms were noted as necessary for supporting the success of such

arrangements.11 

 

 

8 Notable examples include: Maine: Acheson, J. 1975. The lobster fiefs: economic and ecological effects of 

territoriality in the Maine Lobster industry. Human Ecology, 3(3): 183-207; Norway: Jentoft, S. and T. Kristoffersen. 

1998. Fishermen’s co-management: the case of the Lofoten Fishery. Human Organisation, 48(4): 355-365; Japan: 

Ruddle, K. and T. Akimichi. 1984. Japanese fishing cooperatives in Maritime Institutions in the Western Pacific, 

Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology; Southeast Asia: Pomeroy, R. 1995. Community-based and co-management 

institutions for sustainable coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 27(3): 

143-162; New Zealand: Taiepa et al. 1997. Co-management of New Zealand’s conservation estate by Maori and 

Pakeha: a review. Environmental Conservation, 24(3): 236-250; and a global review: Pinkerton, E., ed. 1989. 

Cooperative management of local fisheries: new directions for improved management & community development. 

The University of British Columbia Press, 307 p. 9 Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University 

Press.

10 Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325: 

419-422. 11 Ibid. 1.

Ostrom’s 10 variables toward self-organization

• Size of the resource system

• Productivity of the system

• Predictability of system dynamics

• Resource unit mobility

• Number of users

• Leadership

• Shared morals and ethical standards

• Knowledge of how their actions affect each other

• Importance of resource to users

• Collective-choice rules
7 

Figure 1. Variables related to self-organization, adapted from Ostrom.

12

Berkes13 suggested that cooperative management represented a range of different levels of 

collaboration between government and resource users (Figure 2). He stated that “[c]ooperative management or ‘co-management,’ broadly refers to various degrees of integration of 

local- and state-level systems. It would be pointless to try to define the term co-management 

more precisely because of the variety of arrangements possible. It is true that traditionally comanagement is thought of shared decision-making power by the partners and requires 

governments to devolve some of their power to the partners; but in practice there is a wide 

variety of partnership arrangements that involve various degrees of power-sharing.“14

Figure 2. Levels of co-management, adapted from Berkes.

15

Other cooperative management spectrums have been proposed in the literature, such as 

McCay’s ladder of participation16 and Pomeroy and Berkes’ hierarchy of co-management 

arrangements.

17 Yet, what seems to matter is the degree (e.g., data collection, fishery 

management plans, enforcement) and strength (e.g., trust) of partnerships between 

government and resource users. The ability of those resource users to be organized enough to 

take on responsibilities shared with them is also an important consideration. 

Co-management between Federal, State, and Tribal governments

In the United States, the term co-management is often used with respect to legally defined 

resource management arrangements between federal and state governments, and specific 

coastal tribes in the Northwest, Alaska, and the Great Lakes. In Washington State, Oregon, and 

Idaho, co-management can be traced to the federal court decisions protecting treaty-Indian 

fishing rights that led to the current fisheries management relationships between tribes, the 

 

12 Ibid. 12. 13 Ibid. 1. 14 Ibid. 1, p. 18. 15 Ibid. 1, p. 19. 16 McCay, B.J. 1993. Management regimes. Beijer Discussion Paper Series No. 38. Property rights and the 

performance of natural resource systems background paper prepared for the September 1993 workshop. Beijer 

International Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 17 Pomeroy, R. and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine 

Policy, 21(5): 465-480.

Partnership/ 

Community 

Control

Partnership of 

equals; 

institutionalized 

joint decisionmaking; power 

delegated to 

community 

where feasible

Management 

Boards 

Community 

given 

opportunity to 

participate in 

developing & 

implementing 

management 

plans

Advisory 

Committees 

Partnership in 

decision-making 

starts; joint 

action on 

common 

objectives

Communication 

Start of two-way 

information 

exchange; local 

concerns begin 

to enter 

management 

plans

Co-operation

Community 

starts to have 

input into 

management, 

e.g., use of local 

knowledge, 

research 

assistants

Consultation 

Start of face-toface contact; 

community 

input heard but 

not necessarily 

heeded

Informing

Community is 

informed about 

decisions 

already made
8 

states, and the federal government of trust resources such as salmon, shellfish, and 

groundfish.18 Subsequently, it is now common practice for NOAA to engage in fisheries comanagement with these tribes who have legally recognized rights to harvest and manage these 

resources. In Alaska, the co-management relationship between federal, state, and tribal 

governments, and Alaska Native organizations, are defined through Marine Mammal

Cooperative Agreements to harvest marine mammals. In part, this is due to the unique nature 

of the relationship between the U.S. government and tribal governments.19 Many arctic 

indigenous groups have chosen to form organizations that may be local, regional, or 

international in scope and membership to deal with these shared management objectives—to 

co-manage resources with NOAA.

Legal Authorities

A broad range of legal authorities may be relevant to cooperative management and 

cooperative research initiatives between NOAA Fisheries and others. The following summarizes 

potentially relevant statutory provisions (citations are given to find further information). In 

addition, different initiatives may raise considerations under statutes that are generally 

applicable to federal agencies, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Freedom of 

Information Act, and Administrative Procedure Act. For questions regarding applicability of 

statutes in particular instances, NOAA Fisheries should consult with the NOAA and Department 

of Commerce Offices of General Counsel, as appropriate. 

Two statutory compilations that may be of interest are:

1. Cooperative Conservation Authorities, Department of Commerce (December 15, 2006) 

(see Appendix 3)20

2. Statutes That Authorize a Transfer of Funds to Support International Engagement

 (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_mandates.html)

Other legal provisions not included in the above compilations include:

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

a. Cooperative Research and Management Program (16 U.S.C. § 1867): See Cooperative 

Research section, below, for full text of this provision – MSA section 318.

 

18 For purposes of this paper, the focus is on tribes and their participation in fisheries managed under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 19 The United States consults at a “Government to Government” level, and many indigenous groups have chosen to 

form political entities that may be local, regional, or international in scope and membership to deal with these 

shared management objectives.

20 This 2006 document was compiled in response to Executive Order 13352, “Facilitation of Cooperative 

Conservation” (August 30, 2004). That Executive Order addressed implementation of laws relating to the 

environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, 

and tribal governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions, other nongovernmental entities and 

individuals. E.O. 13352 §§ 1 and 2.
9 

b. Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (16 U.S.C. § 1865): This provision authorizes 

NOAA Fisheries, in cooperation with the Councils and other affected interests, and based upon 

the best scientific information available, to establish a bycatch reduction program, including 

grants, to develop technological devices and other conservation engineering changes designed 

to minimize bycatch, seabird interactions, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality in 

federally managed fisheries.

c. Fisheries Research (16 U.S.C. § 1881c): These fishery research programs are to be 

developed in cooperation with Councils and affected states to provide for coordination with the 

Councils, affected states, and other research entities. These programs require the Secretary to

ensure that affected commercial fishermen are actively involved in the development of the 

portion of the plan pertaining to conservation engineering research.

d. Regional Fishery Management Councils and Fishery Management Plans (16 U.S.C. §§ 

1852-1854): These provisions establish the Councils and set forth their roles and 

responsibilities, enumerate mandatory and discretionary provisions for fishery management 

plans, and set forth requirements regarding Secretarial action on plans, plan amendments, and 

regulations. 

e. Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPP) (16 U.S.C. § 1853a): This section provides that a 

fishing community or regional fishery association may be eligible to participate in an LAPP, if 

they meet criteria developed by the relevant Council, approved by the Secretary, and published 

in the Federal Register. Among other things, a fishing community would be required to develop 

a community sustainability plan, addressing social and economic needs of coastal

communities. An association would be required to submit a regional fishery association plan.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

a. Regulations and Administration, Section 112 (16 U.S.C. § 1382): In this section, the 

Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other 

transactions with federal or state agencies, public or private institutions, or other persons. It 

also authorizes the Secretary to develop measures to alleviate impacts on strategic stocks after 

consulting with Marine Mammal Commission and federal agencies.

b. Assistance and Contributions, Section 118(i)-(j) (16 U.S.C. § 1387(i)-(j)): Subsection (i) 

authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

states, interstate fishery commissions, and Indian tribal organizations in meeting the goal of 

reducing incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels. Subsection (j) provides 

that, for purposes of carrying out section 1387, the Secretary may accept, solicit, receive, hold, 

administer, and use gifts, devises, and bequests. 

c. Take Reduction Teams (TRTs), Section 118(f)(6) (16 U.S.C. § 1387(f)(6)): To address 

taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, the MMPA authorizes the 

establishment of TRTs, which include representatives of federal and state agencies, commercial 
10

and recreational fishing groups, environmental groups, and others, to develop draft take 

reduction plans. 

d. Marine Mammal Cooperative Agreements in Alaska, Section 119 (16 U.S.C. § 1388): This 

section authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native 

organizations to conserve marine mammals and provide co-management of subsistence use by 

Alaska Natives. These agreements include grants that may be used to develop marine mammal 

co-management structures with federal and state agencies.

Endangered Species Act 

a. Cooperation with the States (16 U.S.C. § 1535): The Secretary may enter agreements 

with states for administration and management of areas. This section also allows the Secretary 

to enter into cooperative agreements with states that establish and maintain adequate and 

active programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, for the purpose of 

assisting in implementation of the programs. It provides the agency with the authority to 

provide financial assistance to states with cooperative agreements and specifies a percentage 

limit for federal share of costs. Finally, this section establishes a Cooperative Endangered 

Species Conservation Fund and authorizes amounts deposited to be appropriated annually. 

b. International Cooperation (16 U.S.C. § 1537): This section authorizes the Secretary to 

provide personnel and funds for developing personnel resources and programs for the 

conservation of species and for training in management, research, and law enforcement, 

including providing assistance abroad.

c. Exceptions (16 U.S.C. § 1539): This section authorizes the Secretary to permit takes a) 

for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of a species or b) incidental to 

an otherwise lawful activity. An applicant for a permit to allow incidental take must submit a 

conservation plan that specifies the impacts of the taking, the steps the applicant will take to 

minimize and mitigate the impacts, the funding that will be available to implement such steps, 

and the alternative actions to the taking that the applicant considered and reasons these were 

not used. After public comment on the permit application and conservation plan, the Secretary 

shall issue a permit if he/she finds that the take is incidental to the activity, the applicant to the 

maximum extent practicable minimizes and mitigates the impact of such taking, the applicant 

has adequate funding to implement the conservation plan, and the take will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.

American Fisheries Act

American Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 1851 note – Bering Sea Pollock Fishery, §§ 206, 208, and 

210): These provisions allocate Bering Sea pollock among identified sectors, define the eligible 

participants within the identified sectors, and permit the formation of fishery cooperatives by 

eligible participants. Fishery cooperatives formed under the AFA have provided the AFA fleet 

with flexibility in adapting to new management measures (e.g., the ability to spread their 
11

fishing effort in time and space to accommodate conservation measures to reduce bycatch or 

to protect ESA-listed species). 

Cooperative Management Examples for NOAA

NOAA Fisheries already engages in a number of cooperative management arrangements across 

several statutes. A few examples are outlined below. Examples are provided for informational 

purposes only and not necessarily to advocate for use of particular approaches. When 

considering a cooperative management approach, it would be important to have a more 

thorough discussion of strengths and weaknesses of and challenges in developing, 

implementing, and administering the approach. What works in one fishery may not work in 

another. 

Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

NOAA Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council collaborate using a form of 

cooperative management to address salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. This 

arrangement has been implemented through an MSA fishery management plan amendment. 

Under this arrangement, federal regulations establish shared responsibility between NOAA 

Fisheries, the pollock industry, and other “third party” entities for the management of chum 

salmon bycatch. The AFA allows the pollock industry to form fishing cooperatives and to 

harvest specific proportions of the Bering Sea pollock quota. The cooperatives use private 

contracts to establish rules and procedures for conducting their pollock fishery. NOAA Fisheries 

uses this cooperative structure and the existence of private contracts to allow exemptions to 

time and area closures for industry members who comply with a voluntary bycatch 

management program that meets the requirements outlined in federal regulations. 

 

Community Fishing Associations in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery

In 2005, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) purchased federal groundfish trawl permits and vessels 

with the intention of leasing these permits back to fishermen who were interested in helping 

TNC test the selectivity and feasibility of different types of fishing gear. In 2009 and 2010, NOAA 

Fisheries issued Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) to TNC that allowed them to test this gear and 

to test possible benefits associated with establishing a community-based fishing association 

(CFA). CFAs would allow members to pool catch limits for target and bycatch species. 

In 2011, the limited entry trawl sector of the West Coast groundfish fishery transitioned to an 

Individual Fishing Quota system. TNC, based on the EFP experience, then partnered with the 

Fort Bragg Groundfish Association and the Central California Seafood Marketing Association to 

form a risk pool whereby members pooled their IFQ allocations. In this example of 

management that is independent of NOAA Fisheries but complementary to the federal 

management scheme, members signed a formal agreement to pool some or all of their very 

limited IFQ of overfished species, therefore sharing the risk of catching these species. Members 

also prepared and adopted fishing plans intended to reduce the risk of catching overfished 
12

species. The fishing plans used the best available information to identify areas where catch of 

overfished species was highest or most likely, and members avoided these areas voluntarily. 

Members also used an electronic logbook system, developed by TNC, to capture high-resolution 

spatial and temporal data on fishing activity, and used these data to update and adapt the 

fishing plans. Since launching, the California Risk Pool has added a third fishing association—the 

Half Moon Bay Groundfish Marketing Association. TNC reports that this risk pool has been 

effective at reducing bycatch of overfished species while harvesting target species, and has 

improved the tracking and sharing of fishing information. 

Similar to the TNC sponsored risk pools, the Pacific whiting fishery co-ops share information 

and systems to avoid hot spot bycatch areas. One of the co-ops, the Pacific Whiting 

Conservation Cooperative, has also undertaken research on fishing methods and gear to reduce 

bycatch, relationships between bycatch rates and oceanic conditions, and use of broadband 

sonar to identify bycatch species in the trawl path.
13

Cooperative Research

In the United States and in many other developing countries, the dominant method for 

obtaining information for the management of fisheries and protected species has been through 

centralized, government-staffed research programs. A different approach under the general 

umbrella term “cooperative research” involves a broad range of external stakeholders, 

including state and tribal managers and scientists (including interstate fishery commissions), 

fishing industry participants (including commercial and recreational fishermen), ENGOs, and 

educational institutions. 

Cooperative research is defined as a scientific activity involving two or more partners who gain 

more collectively than each would separately in the pursuit of a shared research goal. A 

scientific activity uses statistically robust methodology, maximizes precision, and either 

minimizes or accounts for bias. In cooperative partnerships, all parties contribute in some 

manner to the scientific activity, and all parties gain from the results. 

For NOAA Fisheries, there are various levels of technical involvement in the design and 

implementation of cooperative projects depending on regional and fishery-specific information 

needs and opportunities, program and survey costs, and potential benefits of the proposed 

research. Cooperative research activities range in scope from limited involvement by 

stakeholders (e.g., fishermen keeping logbooks) to greater participatory involvement where 

stakeholders are included in all phases of the research program (e.g., survey and statistical 

design, analysis of the collected data, interpretation of the results, and communication of study 

findings). Cooperative research designed and conducted by NOAA Fisheries scientists using 

commercial or recreational fishing vessels typically has involved fishermen through using their

fishing vessels, as well as handling of fishing gear (e.g., conservation engineering studies). 

Given the number of fishermen, their expertise, and their regularity on the water, cooperative 

research between NOAA Fisheries and fishermen is valuable. The agency’s cooperative 

research can: (a) be used to increase the precision and expand the scope of resource surveys; 

(b) provide supplemental information about fishing operations; (c) use the knowledge gained 

from fishing to help design and implement research; and (d) build mutual understanding and 

respect among scientists and fishermen. 

The formal Cooperative Research Program portfolio has a number of mature/longstanding 

projects that have been deemed essential to the agency’s overall science enterprise, but their 

continuation under cooperative research funding limits the agency’s ability to address new 

issues and establish new partnerships.

Legal Authority

Cooperative research programs and projects have existed in NOAA Fisheries for most of the 

agency’s history and are considered an important component for conducting fisheries research. 

On January 12, 2007, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act created Section 318 (16 U.S.C. 
14

§ 1867), which requires the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, to establish a program to address needs identified under the Act and 

under any other marine resource laws enforced by the Secretary. Under Section 318, this 

program will: 

1. Be implemented on a regional basis; 

2. Be developed and conducted through partnerships among federal, state, and tribal 

managers and scientists (including interstate fishery commissions), fishing industry 

participants (including commercial charter or recreational vessels for gathering data), 

and educational institutions; 

3. Promote and encourage efforts to utilize sources of data maintained by other federal 

agencies, state agencies, or academia; and 

4. Be funded on a competitive basis and based on regional fishery management needs. 

Section 318 also identifies priority areas that should be addressed by projects conducted under 

the research program including: 

1. Collecting data to improve, supplement, or enhance stock assessments, including the 

use of fishing vessels or acoustic or other marine technology (Section 318(c)(i)); 

2. Assessing the amount and type of bycatch or post-release mortality occurring in a 

fishery (Section 318(c)(ii)); 

3. Conducting conservation engineering projects designed to reduce bycatch, including 

avoidance of post-release mortality, reduction of bycatch in high seas fisheries, and 

transfer of such fishing technologies to other nations (Section 318(c)(iii)); 

4. Identifying habitat areas of particular concern as well as conducting projects relevant to 

the conservation of habitat (Section 318(c)(iv)); and 

5. Collecting and compiling economic and social data (Section 318(c)(v)) 

In addition, MSA Section 408(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. § 1884(a)(4)) requires the agency, subject to 

availability of appropriations, to establish a program “to conduct research, including 

cooperative research with fishing industry participants, on deep sea corals and related species, 

and on survey methods" and to engage in other specified activities.

Project Identification

NOAA Fisheries, through the regional cooperative research coordinators and in collaboration 

with Fishery Management Councils/Marine Fishery Commissions, solicits stakeholder 

involvement using a variety of methods, including workshops, regional and area outreach

forums, trade show booths and presentations, websites, and one-on-one engagement of key 

stakeholders. 

The project identification occurs under the umbrella of current agency guidance (including the 

Fisheries Priorities and Annual Guidance for 2015 and other agency strategic planning 

documents). Additionally, all proposed projects are linked to respective Regional Fishery 
15

Management Council multi-year research priority plans. MSA Section 302(h)(7) directs the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with their Scientific and Statistical 

Committees, to develop multi-year research priorities for fisheries, fisheries interactions, 

habitats, and other areas of research that are necessary for management purposes, for 5-year 

periods. 

NOAA Cooperative Research Examples

Southern California Hook and Line Survey in Cooperation with Sportfishing Industry

Now in its 11th year, this fishery-independent survey of groundfish species thatinhabit 

untrawlable habitats in the Southern California Bight utilizes recreational charter vessels that 

have been selected through a bidding process and meet the survey specifications. As a result of 

the survey, strong and successful working relationships have developed between NOAA 

Fisheries scientists and the sportfishing industry. The survey provides NOAA better-quality 

information for stock assessments, more engaged stakeholders, low charter costs, and a track 

record of 10 years without a single day lost due to mechanical problems, crew delays, or other 

issues. More specifically, the data derived from this survey are used to support stock 

assessments and other research for multiple species of shelf rockfish. The survey’s design, 

protocols, and analytical methods have undergone rigorous peer review through publications, 

the stock assessment review (STAR) process, and a Center for Independent Experts (CIE) review 

in 2012. 

Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program

The Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP) supports the development of technological 

solutions and fishing practices to minimize bycatch and reduce post-release injury and mortality 

of non-target species in our nations’ fisheries. U.S. fishermen are involved with all aspects of 

BREP research, from designing new gear and assisting with data collection, to verifying and 

testing the application of gear in the field. Fishermen often identify needed innovations to 

reduce non-target bycatch while maintaining target catch. Based on congressional direction, 

BREP transitioned from funding internal projects to funding external projects in FY 2012. 

NOAA/BREP supported 14 projects across the country in 2012 ($2.44 million). In September 

2013, NOAA Fisheries/BREP awarded 16 grants totaling $2.39 million.

SaKe (Sardine-Hake) Survey 

NOAA Fisheries developed a new procedure for surveying both Pacific hake and sardine at the 

same time. This combined survey method, SaKe, requires a shared effort by both NOAA and the 

fishing industry, allowing for more frequent abundance estimates for both species, and for 

better managed and potentially more productive fisheries. The SaKe survey estimates the 

biomasses, distributions, and biological compositions of populations of Pacific hake and 

sardines (as well as other coastal pelagic species) using data from an integrated acoustic and 

trawl survey off of the West Coast of the United States and Canada from approximately San 
16

Diego to the northern end of Vancouver Island. The survey data are combined with other 

sources of data to produce the stock assessments for both species, which are used to 

determine allowable catch limits. In the case of sardine, acoustic-trawl data are combined with 

data from aerial surveys run by the industry. In the case of both species, industry-reported 

landings and data from state monitoring programs are also incorporated into the analysis, 

resulting in more robust stock assessments for both species. Additional details can be found 

online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/11_26_12sake_survey.html

Community Fishing Associations in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery

There is also a Cooperative Research component to the West Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Cooperative Management example. In addition to the TNC effort, there is a Cooperative 

Research project investigating the distribution of rebuilding rockfish stocks, and potential to 

utilize modified hook and line gear to target healthy rockfish populations in currently closed 

habitats while minimizing the catch of rebuilding species. The objectives include validating the 

predictive maps by performing scientific sampling (visual surveys and directed fishing) to assess 

encounter rates with overfished species in a subset of locations inside the rockfish conservation 

area, and demonstrating the potential to efficiently fish healthy populations using vertical hook 

and line gear within the conservation areas. 
17

Analysis

The working group interviewed 50 NOAA employees, in various positions, in headquarters, 

regional offices, and science centers that are involved in cooperative management or 

cooperative research efforts. All participants were asked the same set of questions, which are 

analyzed in five categories below. In addition, nine external partners from around the country, 

also with various levels of experience and familiarity with cooperative management/

cooperative research, were interviewed using the same set of questions. That information and 

a listening session (“roundtable”) with the letter writers inform the external analysis. [Note: 

During the interviews, the term “co-management” was used.] 

Successful/unsuccessful attributes of cooperative management arrangements 

Internal Interviews

Participants were asked to identify attributes that made cooperative management programs 

successful or unsuccessful. The interviewees identified several factors that contributed to the 

success or failure of programs. A single attribute may not have been identified as the most 

important aspect for success or failure, but was instead a confluence of many conditions and 

processes. In total, 17 attributes were identified for successful programs and 18 for 

unsuccessful programs (Table 1). 

Table 1. Attributes of successful and unsuccessful co-management.

Attributes Cited for Successful Co-Management Attributes Cited for Unsuccessful Co-management

1 common need(s)/problem(s) between comanaging parties/clearly defined goalsinequity/feeling of being not a valued partner

2 benefits to all parties no clear understanding of division of authority

3 seeking input from stakeholders to find ideas unrealistic expectations/disagreement of goals

4 statutory mandates for cooperation and legal 

framework

parties unwilling to compromise

5 good faith/transparency in engagement and 

collaboration to establish buy in from all parties

fiscal constraints/lack of capacity

6 ownership/stake in the management process lack of sufficient information for effective 

management

7 small scale of fishery/community lack of engagement/top down approach

8 equitable distribution of catch lack of trust between parties

9 focus on science based decision making restrictive/poor legal framework

10 recognition of importance of subsistence lifestyle lack of communication

11 neutral third party facilitation failure to follow process/agreement

12 united industry, trust to carry out plan short term planning/no long term goals 

13 grass roots/industry driven or initiation at a small 

scale or pilot project

too much compromise or disregard of some views

14 operating by consensus poor monitoring and enforcement

15 clearly defined roles not enough checks/balances

16 sophisticated/structured industry parties legal issues/litigation

17 good communication politically motivated process or parties

18 competing uses in management area
18

Although many attributes of successful programs were identified, this does not imply that those 

interviewed uniformly supported cooperative management, or that examples given as 

successful were believed to be fully successful. For example, nine of the responses used the 

same example for both successful and unsuccessful attributes. This implies that, while some 

attributes led to successful relationships and management decisions, other attributes within 

the same program resulted in suboptimal solutions. 

Successful Attributes

The most common response from respondents identified legal frameworks and collaborations

as the two attributes related to successful cooperative management arrangements. 

1. Legal framework

Respondents saw statutory mandates, or legal framework, as important to allow for and 

encourage co-management. When highlighting statutory mandates, interviewees were most 

often discussing the Regional Fishery Management Council process mandated by the MSA, with 

13 responses highlighting at least some aspect of the Council process as positive for comanagement. A common response was that without a statutory requirement, NOAA Fisheries

may not have used ideas from stakeholders, nor shared decision-making authority with the 

Council. Not all participants viewed the Council process as truly co-management, but they 

often felt it did embody some elements essential for co-management. 

Interestingly, the explanation for the resulting benefits of the Council process also identifies 

two of the more popular attributes for success: seeking input from stakeholders to find ideas 

(12%; 6), and stakeholders having ownership or a stake in the management process (17%; 9). 

This also helps to clarify the overall disagreement on the degree to which the Council process is

considered co-management. Undoubtedly, the process solicits advice and information on how 

to best allocate fisheries resources with the fishing industry. But three interviewees felt that, 

from their perspective, NOAA held the ultimate decision-making authority, and therefore there

was unequal ownership in the process for all stakeholders. 

Five interviewees discussed aspects of the unique relationship between NOAA and Native 

American groups supported by a legal structure. This was embodied in marine mammal 

subsistence hunting programs as well as the legal structure that evolved over time following the 

Boldt Decision in how to share salmon between tribal and non-tribal fishermen in the Pacific 

Northwest. It was suggested that these arrangement are perhaps closer to a strict definition of 

co-management, as tribal authorities share authority in planning, management, and 

enforcement.

2. Collaboration

Thirteen participants identified good faith, transparent collaboration, and facilitated buy-in

from all stakeholders as critical for success of co-management. This reflects the importance of 

the process and relationships built, in addition to the structure of the arrangement previously 

discussed. Similar relationship-building attributes identified included first identifying a common 
19

need or problem, so there can be clearly defined goals (8). Others identified a need for clearly 

defined roles (5), having good communication (2), and having a united industry that was trusted 

to carry out the management plan (4). 

Some participants noted the need for organization amongst the stakeholders as an important 

attribute. This could reflect a perceived need for either a greater ability to control activities and 

parties or, in the case of homogenous communities, a lack of diversity of opinions on problems 

and solutions that would lead to greater buy in.

Finally, some attributes could be categorized as outcome-based goals. For example, one 

response suggested that an equitable distribution of catch was a sign of success in a comanagement program, and three responses offered that a focus on science-based decisionmaking could lead to improved outcomes with greater stakeholder acceptance. When 

considering process-based outcomes, another response suggested that operating by consensus 

would allow for successful management. In instances of a lack of consensus, two responses 

stated that a neutral third party was essential for the facilitation of a co-management plan.

Unsuccessful Attributes

The issues identified leading to unsuccessful programs could be divided into the general 

categories of implementation of legal framework, relationship or process-oriented, and 

factual or objective attributes. Several respondents’ answers reflected a lack of the attributes 

that have previously discussed as beneficial. When discussing a lack of success, the 

interviewees also placed an increased emphasis on implementation as a controlling factor.

By far the most common reason given for a lack of success, with 11 responses, was unrealistic 

expectations or a disagreement about overall goals. Interviewees suggested that, despite the 

promise of increased ownership and collaboration, tough decisions still had to be made in the 

management process and that co-management should not be viewed as a cure-all. Even with 

an optimal arrangement, not every party will be able to achieve all desired outcomes, and it is 

therefore important to clearly define what can and cannot be achieved through a comanagement arrangement. Perhaps leading to unrealistic expectations, one of the more 

common attributes cited (5) was a lack of sufficient information for effective management

(e.g., stock status). 

The most commonly cited structural attribute (5) was fiscal constraints or a lack of capacity to 

accomplish desired processes. Co-management is generally thought to shift some of the 

financial and technical burden from the regulatory authorities to the stakeholders. A shift to 

co-management could be financially or technically difficult for smaller-scale operations that are

less well financed or those that have historically employed less sophisticated monitoring 

methods. In addition, four responses indicated that the statutory framework, or legal process, 

was too restrictive. In this view, legal constraints prevented innovative approaches to problemsolving, or the structure slowed the ability to adaptively manage changing conditions in a 

dynamic ecosystem. Conversely, another response suggested that in some instances not 

enough checks and balances were built into the system to allow for successful co-management. 
20

In addition, one interviewee also mentioned litigation and the threat of litigation as an attribute 

that has limited success. 

Overall, relationships between co-managing parties yielded the widest array of problematic 

attributes. The most commonly cited (5) was a lack of trust between the parties. This could be 

due to other relationship processes identified, including a sense of inequity or not being valued 

as a partner (3), that parties were unwilling to compromise (2), or a general lack of 

communication (3). Additionally, the motivations of some viewpoints during negotiations were 

questioned as either politically motivated (1) or that some views were disregarded unjustly

(1). These qualities reflect attributes for good relationship-building identified earlier, such as 

clearly defining goals, objectives, and roles of parties involved. 

In hindsight, interviewees also identified problems with processes that ultimately led to less 

effective implementation. For example, two responses cited a focus on short-term planning or 

a lack of long-term objectives. Another two responses noted that there was no clear 

understanding of the division of authority, preventing issues integral to success from being 

adequately addressed. However, once the plan was initiated, four responses cited a failure to 

follow the agreement as the reason for failure. This could also be due to poor monitoring and 

enforcement practices noted by two participants. This would suggest that in some 

arrangements the aspired benefit of self-enforcement by industry, which some think is 

improved by co-management arrangements, did not materialize to the extent needed.

Competing uses in the management areas is a confounding factor to co-management 

arrangements. However, this could possibly be identified as another instance of a lack of 

sufficient information for management. Arguably, had the effects of competing uses been 

adequately considered in the management plan, they should not detrimentally affect the 

arrangement.

External Interviews

In the interviews with fisheries stakeholders, there was also a broad range of opinions on what 

attributes lead to successful or unsuccessful co-management programs. One participant chose 

not to answer since they did not have a favorable opinion of co-management and therefore did 

not identify a successful or unsuccessful program. 

Successful Attributes

Of the successful attributes identified, half of those providing input (4) emphasized that actually 

having valued input in the decision-making process was a key to success. In the case of 

agreements with Native communities, the ability to have equal authority, without one party 

overruling the other, was uniformly identified as beneficial. Most of the non-Native 

interviewees did not argue that there needed to be complete parity among the parties, 

provided they felt their input was valued and informed management decisions.
21

Two of the external interviewees also identified statutory and legal authorities as attributes 

beneficial to co-management. Again, the interviewees identified both the MSA mandated 

initiatives, and legal authorities enforcing Native American treaty rights. One noticeable trend, 

when compared to the internal interviews, is the idea that the Council system under MSA is not

viewed as co-management. Three of the four external participants who mentioned the MSA 

Council process felt that, while it is a forum for discussion, there is no true sharing of power by 

the government. The fourth respondent took a more nuanced view: the large-scale commercial 

fishing industry dominated any outside input, marginalizing all other parties.

Along with legal structure, participants also identified structural and procedural components. 

One suggested that working toward consensus was optimal for management among parties. In 

order to reach consensus, a good management relationship with informal interactions among 

the stakeholders was suggested. In addition, it was also stated that having a correct size and 

composition of the management group, including sophisticated parties, aided the consensusbuilding process.

Another area highlighted by the external interviews was a greater emphasis on the value of 

external participation in providing information. For example, one interviewee suggested that 

a marine mammal co-management process was successful because the government sought 

specialized knowledge from Arctic indigenous peoples about the ecosystem and marine 

mammal populations that had been hunted for subsistence. Another response valued the 

process where parties worked together to fill gaps in capacity so that all parties can rely on 

their relative comparative advantages.

Unsuccessful Attributes

Reasons offered for unsuccessful outcomes were more diffuse, but largely tracked the themes 

identified in successful programs. The themes of trust and equitable power sharing in 

management decisions were again prominent. For example two interviewees stated that the 

feeling of inequity, or a lower level of input, led to disenfranchisement of some communities. 

Two others offered that, in the case of some catch share co-management arrangements, too 

much control was shifted to a handful of larger commercial fishermen, creating resentment 

among the smaller scale stakeholders. In addition, one cited a case where some members of 

the Council refused to negotiate any points, and the interviewee felt they did not act in good 

faith.

Two responses also identified a lack of flexibility in the statutory authority as an impediment to 

innovative or appropriate solutions. This was also implied by another interviewee who 

suggested that the regulatory process removed actual decision-making from the region to 

headquarters, where there was a lack of local knowledge needed to deviate from procedures in 

place. This was viewed as an inappropriate insertion of parties not truly relevant to the comanagement process. 
22

Finally, the external interviews also mentioned resources. One response stated that the comanagement arrangement put too large a burden on communities. Specifically, it was the time 

burden that stalled operations, as opposed to fiscal constraints.

Overall, the external parties identified issues similar to those in the internal process. Based on 

these accounts, a meaningful inclusion of stakeholder-driven knowledge and technical capacity, 

greater flexibility to adaptively manage the resource, and initiatives to build trust among parties 

would lead to a greater success rate. However, it is important to note that there is not a 

uniform definition of success when discussing co-management. Some perceive success as the 

sustainable management of the resource. Others perceive it is an improvement in the 

management process, or mutual satisfaction among parties. Yet again, it could be perceived as 

meeting all legal obligations to all parties, including the public trust. Therefore, before any 

discussion of which attributes to include in a co-management process, objectives should be 

established at the beginning of the process. 
23

Successful/unsuccessful attributes of cooperative research projects/programs 

Internal analysis

Respondents provided numerous examples of cooperative research projects and programs 

covering all of the U.S. regions. 

Successful Attributes

These examples had varying levels of industry involvement, but there were similarities 

throughout these projects and programs. Generally, successful cooperative research projects 

and programs proactively engage with industry very early in the process. Industry can identify 

research questions that are of importance to their own operations or, in other examples, the 

agency identified a management question and the agency and industry collaboratively 

determined the data needs and assessed the current status of data collection. Successful 

cooperative research projects should have a clear management focus, have a tightly designed 

process, and feed into the research and management process. This should include clear and 

open communication from the beginning, shared priorities, resources to support the work, 

transparent and clear protocols for data management, data collection, and proper incentives 

for stakeholder engagement. 

In many instances, industry collected data on their own vessels and these results were 

compared to agency-collected data. Or the agency charters vessels and works with the crew, so 

they see the scientific process and understand how data are collected. These simple 

arrangements built credibility and trust between the agency and industry.

Unsuccessful attributes

The most important attribute that contributed to unsuccessful cooperative research was 

misalignment of the management objectives of the agency, the science needs, and the needs 

of the fishermen. An attribute of successful cooperative research projects is that practical 

input from stakeholders or fishermen can improve the results of cooperative research. For 

example, a scientific program was designed and mandated for use by the fishing industry. 

Fishermen rejected this program because they felt it was flawed and felt that if they had been 

involved, the results would have been better. This can be seen as the opposite of one of the 

main successful attributes of cooperative research – projects are closely aligned with 

fishermen’s interests and the agency’s science and management needs. 

Cooperative research programs that were unsuccessful tended to be directive projects rather 

than bottom-up. Another attribute to consider was the level of mandates for management. For 

example, high authority mandates (such as those from Congress or the United Nations) issued 

without considering the research results, negatively affected cooperative research 

collaborations. 
24

Respondents noted that a lack of management commitment to the results of the cooperative 

research outcome can undermine the program. Likewise, if fishermen have preconceived 

expectations for how the data would be used and these expectations are not met, this can lead 

to unsuccessful projects. 

Cooperative research projects that do not identify a solution to a problem are not necessarily 

failures. For instance, the buoy-less lobster gear feasibility study improved NOAA Fisheries’ 

understanding of fisheries operations (e.g., gear deployment and retrieval processes), even 

though it did not necessarily lead to a regulatory change. 

Respondents reported that unsuccessful cooperative research projects occurred when there 

were uncooperative partners. Partners were not inclined to participate in cooperative research 

because they believed they already had a solution and were not interested in testing alternative 

hypotheses. Successful communication early in the process may remedy this issue.

External interview

The results of the external interviews reveal a very similar pattern as the internal interviews. 

Stakeholders repeatedly mentioned the need for clear communication and stakeholder 

involvement from the beginning of the project.

Successful Attributes

All external respondents noted that industry, including tribes, must be involved in the design 

of the project from the beginning. Partners should be included in the design and 

implementation of the research. This improves confidence and buy-in in the project results, and 

these arrangements improve knowledge of all those involved. 

Respondents noted that cooperative research could include cases where industry is given the 

freedom to evaluate a management problem and devise a solution without the government’s 

interference. For example, in Hawaii, fishermen were given the opportunity to try different 

hook sizes in their operations, with the collaboration of NOAA Fisheries scientists, to evaluate 

which hooks best minimized interactions with false killer whales.

One respondent noted that successful cooperative research is not necessarily led by NOAA 

Fisheries, but it includes cases where federal, state, and academic partners use common 

consensus techniques. The respondent noted that this type of independent monitoring is costly 

and could be the reason for its limited use.

Another component of successful cooperative research was making sure that all the 

stakeholders, including industry or tribal partners, had access to the data. Also, respondents 

noted that cooperative research must feed into the management process. For instance, one 

respondent noted that the results of cooperative research in their respective region dovetailed 

with the process of setting Annual Catch Limits. 
25

Unsuccessful attributes

External respondents noted that cooperative research projects were unsuccessful when 

assessment scientists were not involved in the projects because the results were not 

incorporated into future stock assessments. This angered fishermen, as they thought it was a 

waste of their effort.

Another example noted by the external respondents was when government agencies assessed 

beaches on tribal properties to identify areas for fishery closures. This assessment was 

conducted without the involvement of the affected tribes. They were presented the results 

without being involved in the process and were outraged.

Cooperative research can be unsuccessful in certain communities if a social network is not in 

place to establish and create community capacity.

Attributes of unsuccessful cooperative research included cases where adequate funding was 

not provided. This was especially an issue for regions with few academic partners.

Another issue for unsuccessful projects was a lack of accountability, with an example being the 

Research Set-Aside quota in the Mid-Atlantic. There were inadequate controls over 

compensation fishing activities, which allowed abuses of the system, quota overharvest, and 

the eventual suspension of the program. 
26

Under the current laws and regulations, what can NOAA Fisheries do to advance the use of 

cooperative management?

Internal Interviews

Of the 50 completed interviews, five people had no response to this question. Of the remaining 

45 interviews many believed that NOAA Fisheries is currently doing co-management and that 

the tools are available for increased co-management. Several themes came up during the 

interviews as important for successful co-management: trust, collaboration, 

communication/listening, and flexibility in rules. Eight interviewees specifically highlighted 

the Council process as a form of co-management. However, one interviewee indicated the 

Councils were not a form of co-management, noting that representation is lacking and it does 

not reflect a co-management model. Three participants indicated that the first step for comanagement is to determine where this type of management makes sense. 

Eight participants mentioned that there are some necessary conditions for successful comanagement for a fishery, including that the fishery should be a discrete small-scale fishery 

that has strong community aspects and some sort of legal or corporate structure. It was 

noted that disparate ill-defined fisheries are not well suited for co-management approaches. 

Participants indicated that the fishing community would need to have a spokesperson or an 

individual who is responsible for communicating within the industry and there would need to 

be an appropriate level of science/monitoring support. Since co-management is an iterative 

process, it would be essential that NOAA Fisheries remain actively engaged in the Council 

process and in communicating what is going on, continue to re-examine current programs to 

make sure goals and objectives are being met, and refine goals and objectives as things change. 

Finally, NOAA Fisheries should recognize, and accommodate, regional differences within the 

United States.

Four interviewees indicated that NOAA Fisheries could best advance the use of co-management 

by conducting pilot studies. It was noted that this could be done as an experimental fishery. 

The agency would need to find an appropriately scaled fishery and then follow up with 

management regimes that could operationalize the results. Education and outreach with users 

was flagged as a necessity for a pilot study. One interviewee indicated that NOAA Fisheries is

already doing pilots and should continue to work on them. Some examples noted that could be 

built upon are the Gulf of Mexico headboat survey, PacFin, surf clam, scallop, groundfish, and 

more generally catch share programs (CDQs, ITQs).

Five interviewees believed that cooperative research could bridge the gap to co-management. 

Some believed that increasing the use of fishery-dependent data—and more completely 

engaging industry in collecting more data and subsequent analysis of that fishery-dependent 

data—are key. One interviewee pointed out that the NOAA Fisheries Science Board is currently 

discussing possible mechanisms to increase cooperative research that could lead to comanagement.
27

Six interviewees indicated that flexibility is an important aspect of co-management, in 

particular efforts by all parties to problem-solve. One person noted that NOAA Fisheries 

currently works closely with the industry, Council partners, and state partners to try to develop 

programs that provide flexibility. Both the MSA and AFA were noted as laws that provide the 

agency with options for addressing issues (i.e., statutes do not mandate one specific approach). 

One person noted that NOAA Fisheries should look for additional administrative means to 

create flexibility. A component of flexibility is a willingness to work together to develop 

solutions. More emphasis from the agency to encourage stakeholder cooperation to develop 

creative ways of management of fisheries is necessary. It was noted that if a manager is rigid 

this will create tension. One interviewee noted that stakeholders other than the fishing industry 

should be involved in the development of more creative and effective approaches to meeting 

stakeholder objectives as well as agency objectives. Finally, interviewees indicated that NOAA 

Fisheries should find ways to work cooperatively to provide data and partner on cooperative 

research that feeds the cooperative management process.

Six respondents mentioned funding as a hurdle to implementing co-management programs. 

There is a limit on how much time employees can spend in the field due to resources, which 

limits their time for work with commercial and recreational fishermen. Budget cuts and travel 

caps hinder employees from working cooperatively with stakeholders; if the agency wants to do 

more, these will need to be revisited. Some needs mentioned for supporting co-management 

were additional training for staff, in particular for facilitation and experts to lead discussions. 

No grant programs are currently available to assist co-management development. 

Four people mentioned enforcement or Joint Enforcement Agreements as an important aspect 

of co-management. One person noted that the JEA program has $2M in grant funding for ideas 

that were suggested from different states, and pointed out that the most effective way to help 

with enforcement is to engage the stakeholders (states). One person noted that NOAA 

Fisheries would need to hire more law enforcement personnel if we increased the use of comanagement. 

Eight interviewees mentioned a culture shift to encourage employees to listen more and that 

open and transparent information-sharing is needed to be effective. Interviewees indicated 

that NOAA Fisheries needs to do a better job of trying to be inclusive by thinking about 

additional entities, stakeholders, or agencies that should be involved in discussions. There need 

to be strong relationships between stakeholders to ensure a better dialog. The involvement and 

trust of all stakeholders is needed. However, it was noted that the industry has to be willing 

and able to have a similar respectful dialog. Interviewees also indicated that NOAA Fisheries

should have knowledgeable staff to communicate with industry to establish rapport, trust, and 

respect. Finally, the agency as a whole should put more emphasis on a structure or process in 

which NOAA Fisheries and Councils are working more cohesively; otherwise the system fails 

and the process fails.

Six people mentioned there is more work to be done on the protected resources side.

Protected species are an area of increasing attention and priorities of the past will be 
28

challenged by new priorities. One respondent suggested that NOAA Fisheries should identify 

how fishery management and protected resources programs can leverage common structures 

to more effectively engage stakeholders. For example, the Council process is a consistent and 

highly structured process that could be better utilized for protected species management 

purposes when there are MSA and ESA-listed species issues (e.g., a fish eating a protected 

species). Under the ESA, it was noted that Incidental Take Permits could be much more 

collaborative. Another way to advance co-management of protected species is to better 

establish or define working relationships among multiple agencies that have different 

jurisdictions. Greater recognition is needed of the value of existing protected species 

management processes (e.g., TRTs). 

Three interviewees specifically referred to agreements with the Alaska Native Organizations

(ANO). One noted that NOAA Fisheries needs to start the process of establishing an agreement

with a meeting to understand boundaries, limits, and desires on both sides. Interviewee 

indicated that NOAA should provide better support for ANO representatives to attend and 

participate fully in co-management meetings to better support the use of traditional knowledge 

in management decisions, and to better support scientific studies needed to address critical 

questions. 

Two interviewees indicated we should consider delegating more to the states or territories. 

There is sufficient authority in the MSA to do so. One person noted that a recreational fishery 

co-management effort could work if we delegate more responsibility to the states. However, 

states and territories don’t always want the responsibility. If this is done, it should be done in a 

constructive framework to protect species. 

Two people mentioned that clarifying our current co-management authorities should be a 

priority for MSA Reauthorization. One interviewee indicated it should provide explicitly for comanagement and involve Commissions, as they have direct links with states and managed 

species cross jurisdictional boundaries. Three people endorsed establishing a policy that will 

streamline our ability to do this, indicating that rules need to be defined on how comanagement could work and be structured. 

External Interviews

Of the nine interviews, eight people answered this question. Many people believed that the 

existing laws were sufficient. However, one person had three specific changes to the MSA that 

could facilitate greater co-management include: 1) amend the selection process for Council 

membership to allow fishermen and the industry a greater say in who represents them (e.g., 

direct election by the industry/fishing community, or formal industry endorsement); 2) allow 

for more equitable division of seats on the Council; and 3) provide a more meaningful appeals 

process when the Department of Commerce overrules the Council’s policy recommendation, to

promote a stronger co-management relationship.
29

One interviewee noted that NOAA Fisheries leadership needs to embrace co-management and 

should support incorporating stakeholder knowledge into management and research. Other 

respondents and the roundtable participants indicated that forums exist for co-management, 

while others indicated new ones needed to be identified to include states and other 

stakeholders. This indicates a lack of clarity about what tools exist for co-management and 

about the priority NOAA Fisheries gives to co-management. Some respondents suggested 

development of a policy to clarify how co-management will be used to further agency 

mandates.

Four interviewees discussed communication at all levels – states, NOAA and the industry – as 

a necessary element for co-management. While robust communication can be very timeintensive, the resulting products are likely better. Public meetings and comments are not 

sufficient for understanding viewpoints and shared visions for the future of the fishery. One 

person indicated that the government tends to be superficial when it comes to understanding 

diverse and representative public perspectives. 

Two interviewees and the roundtable attendees identified flexibility as an important attribute 

that is needed under existing laws. Respondents noted that NOAA Fisheries should allow the

Councils to maintain flexibility to engage in co-management that is effective for each region. 

Regional context must be taken into account when considering a future co-management policy 

(e.g., mainland definitions do not necessarily apply well to western Pacific issues). Within a 

region, fishermen (both commercial and non-commercial) may not be as well-organized and 

centralized as those in other regions and it will be more difficult to involve them in comanagement. Support from NOAA to develop and enhance such organization would increase 

the effectiveness of co-management. 

While respondents indicated that NOAA Fisheries could pursue co-management under existing 

resources, three respondents also identified current obstacles to co-management. These 

included: (1) lack of resources for partnerships, (2) need for funding positions to work with 

the Indigenous Peoples Council on Marine Mammals to do visioning and planning for the 

future, and (3) confidentiality rules for releasing data. 

One respondent indicated that it was necessary to devolve authority from NOAA Fisheries

headquarters to the regions and expedite their review of regional rulemaking documents. They 

flagged that NOAA Fisheries headquarters maintains too much oversight over regional 

management decisions, which undermines a core principle of co-management and power 

sharing, and creates unnecessary delays to an already slow and cumbersome process. 
30

Under the current laws and regulations, what can NOAA Fisheries do to advance cooperative 

research?

Internal Interviews

Nationwide, 50 NOAA Fisheries employees were interviewed. These interviewees provided 

insight into how NOAA Fisheries can advance cooperative research efforts. These responses

were categorized into the following seven themes and topics:

• Foster collaboration by communicating opportunities, building relationships and trust. 

• Define and communicate cooperative research standards and goals. 

• Foster collaboration by changing agency attitudes. 

• Assess where cooperative research would be beneficial and what allows for success. 

• Funding: increase, re-allocate, or consider non-federal sources. 

• Improve or change the current cooperative research process. 

• Increase leadership toward promoting cooperative research. 

Within each of these theme and topic areas, responses varied. For example, interviewees 

differed in whether they preferred NOAA Fisheries researchers leading cooperative research 

projects. Variation in responses likely signals that differences between regions exist and/or the 

level of direct, cooperative research experience varies between our interviewees. 

Foster collaboration by communicating opportunities, building relationships and trust

Sixteen interviewees mentioned the importance of building trust and collaborative 

opportunities with cooperative research partners, suggesting ways the agency might facilitate 

this. One suggested that the agency “... develop guidelines for setting new cooperative research 

agreements to help facilitate partnership building.” That is, make partnership building a 

requirement of cooperative research projects. Four interviewees mentioned that the agency 

should be proactive about seeking out partners—“don’t wait for them to come to you.” Two 

interviewees suggested that NOAA Fisheries actively seek feedback from cooperative research 

partners. One suggested that research set-aside (RSA) programs could serve as a model in this 

regard. 

Other interviewees suggested that cooperative research partners should be fully engaged in all 

stages of the process, including strategic planning and the development of cooperative 

research programs, formulating research questions and proposals, and data collection and 

analysis. That is, “... take a look at the research that needs to be done; early on... [ask] is there a 

way to involve the industry through cooperative research? Be more deliberate in finding 

opportunities.” 

Seven interviewees suggested that the agency engage in more outreach and publicize 

cooperative research opportunities, past projects, and successes. “[Cooperative research] 

project results need more outreach and notoriety... Communicate successes.” One individual 

suggested involving Sea Grant to assist with this outreach. Similarly, some interviewees 
31

mentioned the importance of communicating the agency’s scientific needs and capabilities to 

potential cooperative research partners in order to facilitate discussions about where 

stakeholders might be able to fill a niche, data gap, or help address existing issues and 

challenges. Several forums—such as the Council, Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs), and 

others—could be used to discuss cooperative research needs and strategies with existing and 

potential partners. 

Regardless of the type of outreach, one interviewee suggested that it was important to have 

“ongoing engagement rather than periodic visits from on high” to encourage and promote 

cooperative research. As one respondent said, the agency needs to “... create dialogue, 

common ground, and trust...” between Agency staff and fishermen, and a better understanding 

of each other’s perspectives. This “... is built over time and frequent conversations...” and 

promotes transparency, which “... is critical and feeds directly into trust and support for 

scientific advice.”

Seven interviewees mentioned who they believed the key cooperative research partners were. 

Some focused on seeking partners who had a “stake” in the research; others mentioned the 

fishing industry, academic institutions, states, tribes, NGOs, and other governments. At the 

same time one interviewee was concerned that if a cooperative research partner (e.g., industry 

partner) had a stake in the outcome, then they will want a certain outcome. In contrast, the 

same concern was not mentioned when partnering with academic institutions, as they were 

seen as strengthening NOAA Fisheries’ science and credibility. 

Define and communicate cooperative research standards and goals

Four interviewees mentioned data quality and sharing as important considerations. Some 

voiced concern about the quality of data collected from cooperative research projects and how 

NOAA Fisheries can ensure that the collected data are reliable. This is critical if the data will be

used, for example, in stock assessments or for validating electronic monitoring technologies. 

How data will be shared with cooperative research partners should be discussed and decided 

early in the process. This related to the identification and communication of a project’s goals 

and objectives. Five interviewees mentioned the importance of communicating project goals 

and objectives. One stated that, “[c]ooperative research’s most important factor or function is 

to impart a shared understanding of why the agency is collecting or analyzing data and how 

that data is synthesized and used.” Similarly, another interviewee mentioned that 

communicating management priorities within the agency was also important, so that research 

can be more aligned with these priorities. 

Foster collaboration by changing agency attitudes

Respondents (4) mentioned that attitudes within the agency related to cooperative research 

should change. It was mentioned that the agency should embrace “equal involvement among 

parties” and a “cooperative spirit,” and increase the role of stakeholders in cooperative 

research activities. Similarly, another interviewee suggested that cooperative research partners 

should be engaged in analyses, not just data collection. Another individual mentioned that 

partners should be involved in “... science beyond just bycatch reduction, such as surveys and 
32

assessments.” Two additional interviewees also suggested that the agency should embrace the 

use of fishery-dependent data. 

Assess where cooperative research would be beneficial and what contributes to success

Eleven interviewees suggested that some assessment of past and current cooperative research 

projects was necessary to better understand what worked and what did not. One respondent 

suggested these should be regional assessments, while others suggested these assessments 

could be conducted through workshops with past participants. Assessments could aid in: 

1) identifying the capabilities of cooperative research; 

2) identifying where this research can fill gaps; 

3) identifying opportunities for cooperative research within the agency’s “science framework”; 

and

4) assessing the feasibility of multi-year or periodic projects toward developing a time series. 

Funding: increase, re-allocate, or consider non-federal sources

Comments about funding from 38 interviewees were divided into the following five 

subcategories: 

1. Increase funding of cooperative research efforts. Eighteen interviewees suggested that more 

funding would help to advance cooperative research programs. For example, it was noted by 

one interviewee that part of the reason the agency is not more proactive in its interactions with 

tribal governments on groundfish and marine mammals comes down to funding. 

Some of these interviewees expressed their views on specific funding problem areas. Regarding 

the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program, money should not be awarded to agency principal 

investigators as they have been in the past. However, it was unclear from this interview why 

this was a problem. Several interviewees mentioned increasing the flexibility of funding. Also, 

NOAA Grants Management was noted as an area where improvements in timeliness could be 

focused, particularly when they are involved in moving funds from the agency to cooperative 

institutions like academic institutions.

2. Funding that is stable and multi-year. Five interviewees suggested that “stable” or multi-year 

funding was key to advancing cooperative research programs. This would provide for more 

predictability in whether funds are available each year (which “facilitates an ongoing dialog on 

cooperative research”) and flexibility in how cooperative research funds can be used and 

invested over time (which “would allow broader research programs,” making it “easier to 

attract and retain people to do the research when funding is assured over multiple years”). 

Similarly, one interviewee suggested developing “long term programs for continued data 

collection in perpetuity.”

Eleven interviewees suggested that lack of additional funding was not an issue. Instead, a reallocation or re-prioritization of existing funding was needed. For example, one individual 

stated that “... just having the agency’s leadership be on board is the important thing, it sounds 

like the end result of this [working group] will be a report to leadership and I hope they take it 
33

to heart and basically provide guidance and free up their staff to think about this more, both on 

the science side and management side.” If cooperative research projects are a priority, this 

direction needs to be given and weighed against other agency priorities. 

Several interviewees identified needs for more funding:

• Staff should be increased so as to facilitate, assist with, and evaluate cooperative 

research efforts, such as Research Set-Aside (RSA) programs and Exempted Fishing 

Permits (EFPs). EFPs in particular can help the Agency evaluate new fishing 

opportunities by allowing new gear to be tested that may more efficiently target desired 

species and reduce bycatch of protected species. 

• Science Centers should emphasize and prioritize cooperative research projects.

• There should be better coordination between the agency and cooperative partners, 

such as the Councils, so that they can provide input on research needs, there is a clear 

process of data collection, and research results are shared.

These interviewees recognized that prioritizing agency resources toward cooperative research 

would require the Agency to “... give up some core research/monitoring work to process” if 

additional funding is not available and that this would need to be evaluated carefully to 

determine whether this is the best resource allocation. 

3. Allocate resources to non-fish cooperative research. Four interviewees suggested that more 

cooperative research funds (either new or existing) could be focused on non-fishery species 

such as marine mammals or protected species. There was a perception by some of these 

interviewees that existing cooperative research funding was “directed toward fish-centric 

research” when it could, instead, be more inclusive of “ecosystem components, not just 

harvested species.” One interviewee suggested, “[f]or example, providing research to protected 

species like turtles so that you can have an idea of how many turtles can be [taken] before the 

fishery is affected. The effective number of turtles that can be caught before the fishery is 

closed is dependent not just on the number of turtles caught but also on the size of the turtle 

population. If you do not have information on the protected species (i.e., there are no funds 

available to research them), the fishery may be shut down prematurely or even unnecessarily.” 

Another interviewee mentioned that in the past there was a “Species of Concern” list toward 

which “pro-active conservation efforts” were supported by a grant program. However, the 

“[c]urrent ESA listing workload has impacted the ability to” pursue this type of research.

4. Funding from non-federal sources. Four interviewees mentioned that cooperative research 

programs would benefit by allowing the agency to accept non-federal funding (e.g., private 

gifts, donations). One interviewee mentioned that the fishing industry funds research in New 

Zealand. Another suggested that the agency could “identify funding mechanisms for 

cooperative research associations or conglomerates” as a way to do this. Others suggested that 

allowing the agency to receive non-federal funding “may require legislative authorization.” 

Similarly, one interviewee stated “... if they [the fishing industry] want a newer, broader, more 

extensive survey, it takes time and resources... If they see it as beneficial to them, then how do 

we set it up so they can give us [NOAA Fisheries] money to do that?”
34

Improve or change the current cooperative research process

Twenty-seven interviewees suggested ways that the current cooperative research proposal or 

process could be improved or changed. These ideas include: 1) improve proposal development 

process, 2) examine who receives funding, 3) streamline the current processes, 4) allow regions 

more discretion, and 5) align cooperative research goals with management priorities

Provide incentives for researchers to use the cooperative research model. One interviewee 

suggested that requests for proposals (RFPs) be “incentive-based... e.g., if you conduct this 

research through [a] cooperative research model, then we [NOAA Fisheries] can provide 75% of 

the funding, or some other incentive.”

Examine who receives cooperative research funds. Respondents provided varying views as to 

whether cooperative research projects were best led by NOAA Fisheries scientists or those 

outside of the agency. Respondents suggested examining what strengths each might bring in 

conducting the research 

Streamline current processes. Three interviewees mentioned the need to streamline existing 

processes: a reduction in “regulation and bureaucracy of formal agreements” and “[p]rocedural 

issues such as permitting and ESA Section 7 reviews” was necessary to prevent delays to 

research. Also, one acknowledged that cooperative research is confusing for non-NOAA 

Fisheries partners because “... there are multiple grant programs with different timeframes and 

varying priorities... some program priorities overlap and others don’t.”

Allow regions more discretion. One interviewee recommended that regions should have more 

discretion to set priorities for their regional cooperative research programs and to choose 

which cooperative research projects are funded.

Align cooperative research goals with management priorities. Four interviewees mentioned 

that science priorities and management needs could be better aligned to ensure resources are 

spent wisely. 

Identify and acknowledge how cooperative research data are used and communicate this.

One interviewee noted that most cooperative research data go into “benchmark assessments” 

rather than a “stock assessment update.” Benchmark assessments occur less frequently and so 

these data may not be used immediately. This needs to be communicated to stakeholders.

 

Acknowledge existing cooperative efforts. One interviewee noted that there are “... a lot of 

agency efforts/mechanisms that operate in a ‘cooperative-mode,’ but aren’t formally 

designated as ‘cooperative research’ or funded through cooperative research dollars. A good 

example is the Fishery Information Networks (FINs). These are regional cooperative statefederal programs to design, implement, and conduct marine fisheries statistics data collection 

programs and to integrate those data into a single data management system that will meet the 

needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen.”
35

Identify impediments to cooperative research. Four interviewees identified the following 

impediments to engaging in more cooperative research: 

• Insurance requirements related to worker safety and having non-federal staff on 

government vessels or federal staff on non-government vessels can impede research. 

• Data confidentiality restrictions and the “... the ability to utilize the data collected for 

agency priorities” can be a problem.

• Logistical difficulties with contracts and cooperative agreements.

• Institutional impediments such as whether quota or research set-asides are used for 

cooperative research projects. 

Increase leadership toward promoting cooperative research. Respondents gave varying 

feedback on how cooperative research could be better promoted. One said current programs 

were sufficient, while others suggested that NOAA Fisheries should enhance its leadership of 

and promotion of cooperative research. For example, one individual suggested that a “clear 

national-level leader and strategic plan,” similar to the recreational fishing initiative, was a way 

to promote cooperative research programs. Another interviewee similarly stated that the 

agency’s leadership “...needs to make it known to those out there in the management and 

science realm that this is important... So it’s just making it a priority.” 

External interviews

This analysis includes results from nine “external” (non-NOAA Fisheries) interviews and 

feedback from the attendees at the “roundtable.” These interviews identified themes or topics 

that related to improving or changing the current cooperative research process to increase or 

enhance cooperative research within the agency. These themes were divided into five 

categories: 

• Foster collaboration/be more inclusive by engaging communities early. 

• Define/communicate research goals. 

• Increase leadership. 

• Streamline the EFP and grants processes. 

• Increase or better utilize funding. 

Foster Collaboration

Two interviewees mentioned the importance of engaging both commercial and recreational 

fishermen in research projects. Engagement referred to making an effort to let fishermen know 

about cooperative research opportunities as well as education and training about the research 

process (from data collection to analysis to interpreting results to use in management). Another

interviewee stated that the agency should, “[f]igure out how to involve anglers. Start with 

simple data collection. A good example is the research... to determine what kind of toxins were 

involved in the fish kills. Constituents were actively involved in bringing in carcasses to 

collection centers—getting [that] kind of constituent involvement yields tremendous results 

and saves money.”
36

Two additional interviewees reflected on cooperative research between NOAA Fisheries and 

tribal scientists. One mentioned that despite all the work done on tribal consultation (under 

Executive Order 13175 that requires consultation and coordination with tribal governments), 

this requirement to consult with tribes “... hasn’t done much of anything” to improve the status 

quo. Another interviewee suggested that if additional resources were available, it may be 

beneficial to create a “full-time well-defined position focused on cooperative research and 

cooperative management” who would serve as a liaison between each tribe and the agency. 

This interviewee suggested that creating such positions would go “a long way” in improving 

research collaboration and relationships. In lieu of additional funding, this interviewee 

suggested having organized, well-defined “summit meetings” on a periodic basis to discuss 

cooperative research priorities, projects, and progress. It was suggested that better structured 

meetings at Council meetings that agency and tribal representatives already attend could 

facilitate cooperative research.

Define and communicate research goals

Respondents indicated that all the relevant stakeholders should work together to define 

research goals collaboratively. Further, the research outcomes should be clearly identified and 

it should be understood how they will fit into existing or future management needs. For pilot 

studies, such as EFPs, it may be necessary to emphasize that the outcomes of such a study may 

or may not be applicable to a particular management need, so expectations of how the results 

will be use are tempered. Likewise, additional barriers to engaging partners in cooperative 

research (e.g., data-sharing) should be identified. 

Increase leadership

One interviewee noted the importance of good leadership. “We need to have good leaders, not 

just people who go to meetings. We need to have people who will check back with the people 

they represent and bring a good product to them.” Within the context of this interview, the call 

for “good leaders” applied to all cooperative research partners (i.e., not just agency 

representatives) and suggests that a good leader is one who communicates progress on and 

outcomes of research projects to all partners and the groups they represent. 

Streamline the EFP and grants processes

Two interviewees mentioned the importance of having more cooperative research 

opportunities to conduct pilot studies or the issuance of experimental or exempted fishing 

permits (EFPs). The agency should work to “streamline” and increase the “timeliness” of the 

EFP process, and communicate why EFPs are not always issued. This comment ties back to the 

importance of communicating research (and management) priorities and goals to partners, to 

help temper expectations. Streamlining the cooperative research grants process was also 

mentioned. An additional interviewee mentioned that this streamlining included the interaction 

between the federal and state permitting processes. 

Increase or better utilize funding

Six of the nine external interviewees mentioned that to advance cooperative research, funding 

should either be increased or better utilized. Suggestions included that NOAA Fisheries look at 
37

the National Science Foundation’s process of cooperative research, and also suggested that the 

NOAA Fisheries Science Centers should consider changing policies on how they conduct 

fisheries research. 

One interviewee suggested that cooperative research programs and projects would be 

improved if existing funds were re-allocated: update the proportion of funds that are allocated 

to each region. This interviewee stated that the Northeast and Southeast received the majority 

of funds, and the other regions had to compete for the remaining funds. This interviewee said 

that, if regions were allocated and allowed to administer their own cooperative research funds, 

then competition for funding could (and should) occur regionally, rather than nationally. 
38

How does Cooperative Research feed into Cooperative Management? 

Internal Interviews

The interviewees did not universally feel that cooperative research feeds into comanagement. The lack of consensus was primarily due to an inconsistent understanding among

interviewees on what constitutes co-management, and the opinion that there are few, if any, 

true co-management programs in place for cooperative research to support. Several 

interviewees viewed “co-management” as meaning there must be a strong element of power 

sharing, while other interviewees viewed the term as referring to any participation (whether 

voluntary or mandatory) in support of the management program. As a result, the responses 

regarding the role and significance of cooperative research to support co-management were

colored by the interviewees’ definition of co-management, confounding the results.

However, there was consensus among interviewees that cooperative research is an important 

tool in supporting science and management programs. Cooperative research supports these 

programs by leveraging expertise and resources that may not be otherwise available, 

addressing important research needs, and helping to garner buy-in from the vested fishing 

industry and other stakeholders. It was consistently noted that cooperative research is a 

valuable tool, even in the absence of a co-management program. Conversely, some 

interviewees noted that a successful co-management program would need a strong 

cooperative research component. 

Interviewees stated that cooperative research feeds into co-management (or could) in several 

important ways, most notably from the data generated from cooperative research that feeds 

into management. Many interviewees noted that cooperative research is most effective when 

leveraging stakeholder expertise and resources to address discrete science and management 

questions. Types of research most frequently cited include conservation engineering, 

enhanced fishery-dependent data collection, biological sampling, and industry-based surveys. 

Cooperative research was also cited several times as being relatively responsive and flexible to 

emerging research issues, which can allow research results to be produced and applied in a 

more timely fashion. It was noted by several interviewees that stakeholders need to be 

engaged throughout the process, including the development of the research issue, execution of 

the research, and the review and application of the results. Industry participants need to be 

invested beyond just financial compensation for the use of their vessels. In addition to project 

participants being engaged throughout the process, it is important that end users are also 

engaged in cooperative research efforts, and steps should be taken to ensure that they are 

prepared to use the research results, as appropriate. A frequent critique of cooperative 

research is that the results are not used, which undermines current and future cooperative 

research efforts. Although most interviewees felt cooperative research has a role to play, the 

relative importance and potential contribution of cooperative research results varied among 

interviewees, from significant to minor. Some of the interviewees stated that cooperative 

research has limitations, and that it does not have a significant role in improving stock 

assessments, or supporting management programs in general, and that it could not replace 

most of the core science programs run by the agency. There were several comments that 
39

cooperative research projects must have realistic objectives and follow sound scientific 

methods, and that research should not be done to provide financial subsidies to the fishing 

industry, or to mollify political pressures. Several interviewees noted that efforts must be made 

to ensure strong quality assurance over research results, and that conflict of interest issues 

should be addressed before cooperative research projects are designed and, again, when 

considering research results. 

In addition to support derived from research results, most interviewees cited stakeholder 

engagement and buy-in as a primary way in which cooperative research can feed into and 

support co-management programs. The basic sentiment was that cooperative research fosters 

stakeholder buy-in to the science and, consequently, management. Cooperative research also 

can bring diverse stakeholders together, which helps establish common ground, promotes 

communication, can build trust, and increases the body of expertise to draw on for making 

management decisions, elements generally agreed critical to an effective co-management 

program. It was noted several times that follow-through with the research is critical to 

maintaining stakeholder engagement and support or cooperative research and comanagement. There must be clear benefits to participating in the research. Along these same 

lines, there needs to be strong communication about reasonable expectations for the research. 

One interviewer commented that it can be difficult to garner industry buy-in, even from 

individuals directly involved in conducting the research. 

Research results and industry buy-in were the most frequently cited ways in which cooperative 

research can support co-management. All but one of the 49 interviewees mentioned one or 

both of these attributes of cooperative research. Of these, 20 interviewees referenced both, 20 

only referenced the scientific benefits, and eight only referenced the less tangible benefits of 

creating buy-in and engagement. There was generally a consistent balance between regions 

and headquarters, although the Northeast was the only region that was more apt to reference 

both attributes, whereas the other regions were more likely to just reference the benefits of 

the science. Although these results are based on summarized interview comments, they 

indicate the science products are the principal driver for cooperative research, with industry 

buy-in and capacity building providing a supporting role. 

Finally, several interviewees commented on the process of how cooperative research results 

feed into co-management. Cooperative research results can be used to inform a management 

action or a new regulation, or a cooperative research product can be voluntarily adopted by the 

fishing industry. Voluntary adoption of a cooperative research product, such as a selective 

fishing gear design or participation in a bycatch avoidance network, indicates some level of buyin to the science and management program—a cornerstone attribute of cooperative research 

and co-management.

There was consensus that cooperative research, with careful planning, can be an effective 

research strategy that can be used to support science and management programs, but there 

was no consensus on how cooperative research is feeding into co-management programs. 

There was a very consistent message that this support is realized in the form of useful research 

results, and stakeholder engagement and buy-in. 
40

External Interviews

Although the external interviewees’ areas of expertise are diverse, their responses regarding 

how cooperative research feeds into and supports co-management were largely consistent

amongst the external respondents, as well as with the internal interviewee responses, although 

there were some notable differences. The external interviewee responses focused more on the 

need for early engagement and close coordination for cooperative research to be effective, and 

less on some of the technical aspects of implementing cooperative research projects and using 

the results. Comparing the internal and external responses was complicated due to the 

different questions that were asked. As with the internal interviews, the definition of comanagement varied, which affected opinions on how cooperative research feeds into comanagement. 

There was consensus that cooperative research plays a significant role in supporting comanagement systems, with each interviewee providing at least one example of success. Similar 

to internal interviewee responses, the manner in which cooperative research feeds into and 

supports co-management programs is through providing valuable information and research 

products, and through creating buy-in and building capacity with stakeholders. The areas of 

cooperative research that were most often cited as being successful include gear technologies 

and conservation engineering, data collection programs (e.g., study fleets), industry-based 

surveys, and testing or developing new data collection and reporting technologies. 

A prominent sentiment was the importance of early stakeholder engagement for cooperative 

research to be effective. Early engagement and collaboration leverages both practical and 

technical stakeholder expertise that is often lacking at NOAA Fisheries (e.g., working efficiently 

on the water, fishing gear design and performance, resource knowledge). In addition to adding 

value to the research project, early engagement helps achieve some of the less tangible 

attributes of cooperative research, including stakeholder engagement, and science and 

management buy-in. Adding to this point, several commented that cooperative research 

entails more than hiring a vessel platform to conduct the research, and that the fishing industry 

(or other stakeholders) needs to be true partners in the project. Conversely, several 

interviewees commented on the negative outcomes due to poor communication and bringing 

stakeholders into a project late in the process. Foremost, critical expertise is missed in the 

development of a research project, which may result in backtracking (which wastes valuable 

time and resources) or moving forward with a poor or flawed research plan. In addition, late 

engagement undermines trust between stakeholders, buy-in to the research project and 

results, and faith that NOAA Fisheries is truly interested in working collaboratively. Several 

commented that NOAA Fisheries does not adequately engage stakeholders when developing 

cooperative research projects. One interviewee extended the need for early engagement to 

the end users for the research results (e.g., managers and assessment scientists). End users can 

help refine the research issue and address technical concerns that could affect the utility of the 

research. 
41

External interviewees had less direct experience with implementing research programs and 

cooperative research projects than internal interviewees. As such, there were fewer comments 

on logistical and technical aspects for how cooperative research feeds into co-management. 

However, several did note that cooperative research is best suited to addressing discrete 

research needs with direct applicability to science and management programs. Several noted 

the importance of having tangible benefits to maintain stakeholder buy-in and participation. 

In summary, all of the interviewees strongly supported cooperative research and the benefits 

that it can provide for fulfilling science and management needs, and generating stakeholder 

buy-in. Early and earnest engagement is critical for these benefits to be realized.
42

Recommendations to Leadership on Cooperative Management and Cooperative Research

Note: These recommendations will be tracked by the NOAA Leadership Council.

 

Communication

1) The Headquarters Communications Office, Regional Offices and Science Centers should

review the specific communication mechanisms and platforms being used to assist 

agency partners and stakeholders interested in learning more about participating in 

cooperative management (e.g., regional points of contact, information on how to obtain 

an EFP, grants, etc.). As part of this, the Regions and Science Centers—through their 

Regional Communications Council lead—should: 

a. Identify and evaluate the cooperative management information currently

available on their own websites and via other communications tools used by the 

agency (e.g., brochures, workshops, etc.); and

b. Identify and evaluate their related Regional Fishery Management Council websites 

to determine what cooperative management information exists there. 

c. The Fisheries Office of Communications will lead a similar evaluation of the 

headquarters program websites, including SF, PR, S&T, and others. In addition to 

reporting on the headquarters evaluation, the Communications Office will work 

with the Regional Communication Council to collect and report Regional and 

Science Center information.

d. Consider using other government agencies to publicize opportunities (e.g., Marine 

Mammal Commission).

2) The headquarters programs, Regional Offices, and Science Centers should create or 

facilitate more opportunities to engage possible cooperative research/cooperative 

management partners. This could range from encouraging NOAA Fisheries staff to work 

with outside partners including regular, regional town halls, roundtable discussions, or 

other meetings to engage stakeholders in addition to the existing Council process, 

consistent with the recently adopted Engagement Principals (11/2014). 

Cooperative Management Policy

1) Provide the guidance below to NOAA Fisheries Employees, partners, and stakeholders 

on the range of cooperative management tools that NOAA Fisheries has available. 

Given the various definitions and understandings of “co-management,” this White Paper 

recommends that use of the term “co-management” be reserved for when there is shared 

management with similar authorities between NOAA Fisheries and states or tribes. The 

working group recommends that a common definition of the term “cooperative 

management” be used to differentiate between “cooperative management” and “comanagement” as well as “cooperative research.” 
43

 It may be helpful to explicitly establish a common understanding of what “cooperative 

management” means to NOAA, as the working group noted internal and external differences in 

views regarding such arrangements. We recommend: 

“Cooperative management” refers to when stakeholders, after coordinating with NOAA, carry 

out certain conservation and management responsibilities. This may require those stakeholders 

to incur the burden of investing additional human and financial resources. As a general rule, 

cooperative management should be pursued when NOAA and the stakeholders gain mutual 

benefits and when legal authority permits.

As reflected in Figure 3, cooperative management has an analog in cooperative research: 

stakeholders work together with NOAA to develop the research design and collect data, 

consistent with standards that ensure that the data can be used for scientific and management 

purposes.

Figure 3: Levels of cooperative management, modified from Berkes.

21

It is important to note that, under existing authorities related to cooperative management 

between NOAA and most user groups, final decision-making and enforcement authority would 

rest with NOAA. This is different in the case of co-management, i.e., government-togovernment arrangements in which statutory and other legal principles and authorities 

prescribe the jurisdiction and authority of federal, state, tribal, and local governments.

 

21 Ibid. 1, p. 19.

Top-down 

management 

Government 

takes on all 

aspects of 

resource 

management 

including 

science & 

policymaking.

Data 

collection

Entities develop 

and participate 

in sampling 

protocols, data 

collection 

activities, etc.

E.g., 

cooperative 

research 

projects

Analytical 

tools/models

Entities develop 

and agree on 

analytical tools 

(e.g., stock 

assessments)

E.g., stock 

assessment 

review (STAR) 

panel process of 

the PFMC 

Review & 

interpretion

Entities review 

and seek a 

shared 

understanding 

and acceptance 

of analytical 

results

E.g., Scientific & 

Statistical 

Committees of 

RFMCs

Policy & 

management 

plans

Entities develop 

policy and 

management 

plans.

E.g., 

management or 

plan teams of 

the RFMC 

process 

Implementation 

Entities 

participate in 

the regulatory 

implementation 

and enforement 

of policy & 

management 

plans.

E.g., Fed/State 

and tribal 

governments

Comanagement 

Entities have 

similar power 

and authority in 

all respects, and 

participate in all 

cooperative 

research 

activities. 

E.g., Fed/State 

and tribal 

governments

Cooperative management Cooperative research Co-management
44

2) The NOAA Fisheries Policy Office should evaluate our partnership with Sea Grant, 

particularly regarding research, outreach, and education, to determine if there are 

additional ways to engage the academic and stakeholder communities.

3) The NOAA Office of Communications and Office of Policy should facilitate in-reach by 

training all appropriate NOAA Fisheries staff on the common understanding of comanagement, cooperative management, and cooperative research and the suite of 

tools available to NOAA Fisheries under the MMPA, ESA, and MSA. Facilitation and/or 

customer service training may be appropriate for specific staff to improve interactions 

between NOAA Fisheries staff and constituents. Training could take place through 

webinars, field training, training videos, and publicized information on the NOAA 

Fisheries intranet. This recommendation may initially require additional funding 

resources but may be offset by gains in management efficiency.

4) NOAA Fisheries Leadership and their staff should develop and maintain good working 

relationships with cooperative management partners and be accountable for the 

success of those relationships. 

5) NOAA Fisheries Leadership and NOAA Fisheries Management and Budget should 

continue to push for statutory language needed to accept private donations and 

determine the proper guidelines regarding the use of private funds.

6) Employees and cooperative management partners should establish clear objectives and 

expectations of their respective roles, as well as regularly review whether there are 

challenges that need to be addressed. Dialog is needed in both directions.

7) Regional Offices and Science Centers should explore whether NEPA review/analysis for 

EFPs and grants can be streamlined.

Cooperative Research

1) The Science Board should review how Cooperative Research feeds into management

priorities and, if necessary, engage the Regulatory Board.

2) The Cooperative Research Program should ensure that cooperative research projects 

are aligned with management priorities and focus on science gaps (e.g., habitat science 

and its integration into stock assessments). 

3) The Cooperative Research Program and other cooperative research activities (i.e., 

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants and BREP) should ensure that both stakeholders and NOAA 

Fisheries are involved from start to finish to set goals and objectives and to ensure

results have the best chance to be used for science and management purposes. 

Likewise, it is important to have the appropriate suite of expertise engaged in a given 

cooperative research project to ensure that the resulting data can best be used toward 

practical applications for science and management purposes. For example, if a project 

addresses a social science concern, it is vital that social scientists be included in the 

design, implementation, and analysis of that project. 

4) NOAA Fisheries Leadership should ensure cooperative research is visible in Science 

Center planning and program reviews, engage their staff, and be accountable for good 

working relationships with cooperative research partners.
45

5) NOAA Fisheries should encourage peer review products as a preferred outcome of the 

research activities. Peer reviewed products can provide maximum impact in support of 

NOAA Fisheries science (e.g., stock assessments) and management priorities. If 

possible, NOAA Fisheries should also aid authors in publishing so as not to extend the 

publication periods. 

6) The Cooperative Research Program should review existing long-term/multi-year 

cooperative research projects and develop recommendations for how to maintain and 

transition funding for these projects to other sources (internal or external).

7) Working with the NOAA Office of General Counsel, develop a way to help program 

offices to quickly identify which legal authorities and types of agreements might be 

relevant to cooperative research activities with external partners (academics, industry, 

NGOs, etc.).

8) NOAA Fisheries should conduct cooperative research, such as testing new fishing gear, 

within MSA-established fishing mortality limits and consistent with other applicable law, 

such as the ESA and MMPA. A variety of mechanisms has been developed and should 

be applied to allow such cooperative research to move forward, not impeding

partnerships.

Metrics

1) NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Science and Technology should survey external partners on 

their perceptions of NOAA’s cooperative management and cooperative research 

programs and re-survey them in 2 to 3 years to see if perceptions have changed. The 

survey should be re-evaluated as needed.

2) NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Science and Technology should review 2014 cooperative 

research program projects and determine how many, and which, projects better 

informed, facilitated, or supported improved management decisions or enriched 

scientific products. 

3) In FY16 develop reporting tool that tracks how each Cooperative Research Program 

project fits into the Agency’s science based management of living marine resources.

Process for sharing White Paper

1) This white paper was shared for review and comment on the recommendations with the 

following advisory groups: 

 Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee 

 Council Coordination Committee

 Marine Mammal Commission

2) Share the final white paper with all internal and external interviewees. 
46

Conclusion

The November 25, 2013, letter recommended that NOAA support cooperative management 

and cooperative research as a means to bring new resources to fisheries management, enhance 

NOAA’s capabilities, and improve stakeholder relationships. Through this review, NOAA has 

examined its current activities and engagements, identified areas that could benefit from 

improvement and new resources, and considered ways to better draw upon the strengths that 

state, tribal, and local governments and stakeholders bring to fishery conservation and 

management efforts. While NOAA Fisheries does a lot of cooperative management and 

cooperative research, more can be done to promote these activities. The working group 

believes that the recommendations provided here offer a path forward.

It is important to acknowledge the role of the Regional Fishery Management Councils as part of 

the spectrum of cooperative management. The Councils are responsible for the fisheries that 

require conservation and management in their regions and are composed of both voting and 

non-voting members representing the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in addition 

to environmental, academic, and federal and state government interests. The Council process 

itself is on the spectrum of cooperative management. In addition, there are several examples 

of cooperative management approaches the Councils have developed over the years, ranging 

from the AFA Pollock cooperatives and other examples described in this paper to the 

development of the Sector program in the Northeast to charter/headboat cooperative 

management being piloted in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Cooperative management” refers to when stakeholders, after coordinating with NOAA, carry 

out certain conservation and management responsibilities. This may require those 

stakeholders to incur the burden of investing additional human and financial resources. As a 

general rule, cooperative management should be pursued when NOAA and the stakeholders 

gain mutual benefits and when legal authority permits.

“Cooperative research” allow stakeholders to contribute to the overall base of knowledge, 

enabling NOAA to make informed decisions. In general, NOAA should support stakeholder 

research and advise the stakeholder on how to best structure their research efforts. Also, NOAA 

may choose to confer with stakeholders where multiple overlapping research initiatives exist, in 

an effort to determine whether one or more of the research projects could be modified to 

increase the overall knowledge. NOAA should consider how best to be a partner and facilitator 

to create a positive environment for cooperative research projects.
47

Appendix 1: Interview Questions

Internal Interview Questionnaire

READ BEFORE EACH INTERVIEW: In the last year, the concept of co-management has received attention 

from a variety of NOAA Fisheries’ constituents including industry, environmental groups, and academics. 

NOAA Fisheries is interested in understanding this issue from a variety of perspectives and is also 

interested in learning more about cooperative research and its potential connections to comanagement. NOAA Fisheries Leadership has formed a working group to examine current NOAA 

Fisheries co-management and cooperative research programs in the U.S., identify and assess the factors 

leading to success of these approaches to marine resource management, and any challenges or

roadblocks limiting the utility of these approaches. The working group’s final product will be provided 

internally to NOAA Fisheries Leadership to determine next steps on this topic. 

Opening:

1) Are you now, or have you been involved in co-management programs, and if so, how?

a. How would you define or describe co-management?

Before we start I would like to share the definitions we are using for Co-Management for the purposes 

of this review. 

Co- management: A process of co-management in which increased responsibility is devolved from the 

government to resource users. Co-management is a management regime that necessitates some degree 

of sharing of management responsibilities between participants: the government and fishermen.

Next I will pose a series of questions about co-management and we will record your answers.

Co-Management Questions:

2) Is co-management important or unimportant for marine resource management?

3) Why or why not? Please provide a successful example of management where stakeholders and 

the government share decision-making authority.

4) What structures or processes made that example successful in terms of government and 

stakeholders sharing responsibility? 

5) Please describe an example of unsuccessful co-management?

6) What structures or processes made that example unsuccessful?

7) Do you see any disadvantages to co-management?

8) What are the most important outcomes/benefits of co-management? 

9) How do you see enforcement fitting into co-management? 

10) Under the current laws and regulations, what can NOAA Fisheries do to advance the use of comanagement?

11) Provide an example of how NOAA Fisheries incorporated stakeholder's knowledge into marine 

resource management program. 

Opening:

1) Are you now, or have you been involved in cooperative research programs, and if so, how?
48

a. How would you define or describe cooperative research?

Before we start I would like to share the definitions we are using for Cooperative Research that we are 

using for the purposes of this review. 

Cooperative Research: A process by which agencies, scientists and stakeholders participate in a 

scientific activity for management related research. 

Cooperative Research Questions:

2) Are you aware of any successful examples of how cooperative research has played a significant 

role in creating or maintaining a co-management system?

3) What structures or processes make cooperative research successful?

4) Describe examples of unsuccessful cooperative research? 

5) What structures or processes made those cooperative research examples unsuccessful?

6) How can cooperative research best support existing management systems? 

Possible future co-management systems and foster the development of new co-management 

regimes? 

7) Within existing laws and regulations, how could NOAA Fisheries advance the use of cooperative 

research?

8) What can NOAA Fisheries pro-actively do to help advance the use of cooperative research for 

marine management purposes?

9) What are the most important outcomes/benefits of cooperative research?

10) Do you think Cooperative Research should feed into Co-Management? If yes, what is the most 

important factor to address to make it happen?
49

Internal Interview Questionnaire

READ BEFORE EACH INTERVIEW: In the last year, the concept of co-management has received attention 

from a variety of NOAA Fisheries’ constituents including industry, environmental groups, and academics. 

NOAA Fisheries is interested in understanding this issue from a variety of perspectives and is also 

interested in learning more about cooperative research and its potential connections to comanagement. NOAA Fisheries Leadership has formed a working group to examine current NOAA 

Fisheries co-management and cooperative research programs in the U.S., identify and assess the factors 

leading to success of these approaches to marine resource management, and any challenges or 

roadblocks limiting the utility of these approaches. The working group’s final product will be provided 

internally to NOAA Fisheries Leadership to determine next steps on this topic. 

We are seeking perspectives from external partners to provide balance for the purposes of the white 

paper for NOAA Fisheries Leadership looking at the successes and hurdles related to Cooperative 

Research and Co-Management. As you may know, NOAA often receives requests for information under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Please be aware that a summary of your interview could 

potentially be subject to release outside NOAA if requested pursuant to FOIA.

Co-Management Questions:

1) Are you now, or have you been involved in co-management programs, and if so, how?

2) How would you define or describe co-management?

3) Please provide a successful example of management where stakeholders and the government share 

decision-making responsibility. Why was it successful?

4) Please describe an example of unsuccessful co-management. Why was it unsuccessful?

5) How do you see enforcement fitting into co-management?

6) Under the current laws and regulations, how can NOAA Fisheries advance the use of comanagement?

Cooperative Research Questions:

1) Are you now, or have you been involved in cooperative research programs, and if so, how?

2) How would you define or describe cooperative research?

3) Are you aware of any successful examples cooperative research? Why was it successful? 

4) Does that example have a significant role in supporting, creating, or maintaining a marine resource 

management program?

5) Describe an example of unsuccessful cooperative research. Why was it unsuccessful?

6) How can cooperative research best support existing and future co-management systems or 

programs?

7) Within existing laws and regulations, how can NOAA Fisheries advance the use of co-management?
50

Appendix 2: Letter from Stakeholders
At-sea Processors Association ◦ Berkley Conservation Institute, Pure Fishing ◦ Cape Cod Commercial 

Fishermen’s Alliance ◦ Center for American Progress ◦ Michael De Alessi, Ph.D. ◦ Environmental Defense 

Fund ◦ Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance ◦ Ray Hilborn, Ph.D. ◦ William T. Hogarth, Ph.D. ◦ 

Steven Murawski, Ph.D. ◦ The Nature Conservancy ◦ John Oliver ◦ Scott Rayder ◦ Andrew A. Rosenberg, 

Ph.D. ◦ Sea State, Inc. ◦ Sullivan & Richards ◦ United Catcher Boats

 

November 25, 2013 

Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 5128 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Dear Dr. Sullivan: 

Congratulations on your recent appointment. We are a working group of fishery management experts 

and leaders from around the country who have been meeting since February to consider cooperative 

approaches for managing fisheries in the U.S. We look forward to working with you on the important 

fisheries issues facing our nation and urge you to make co-management one of your top priorities as you 

steer the agency through this challenging budget climate. By embracing co-management as part of the 

fabric of sustainable fisheries management, we are convinced you can bring in new resources from 

outside parties to enhance the agency’s capabilities, while achieving healthy and productive oceans and 

fisheries and improving stakeholder relationships. 

Much of the discussion at Managing our Nation’s Fisheries III touched on the value of agencystakeholder cooperation and devolution of certain agency responsibilities through co-management 

agreements for addressing social and economic considerations, sustaining working waterfronts, 

providing for more responsive and effective recreational fisheries management, and improving the 

quality of and confidence in fisheries research, among other topics. Devolving more substantial 

research and management roles to states and stakeholders can help reset the relationships to bring new 

resources and creativity to solving these and other challenges. 

Co- management harnesses the innovation of the private sector and other levels of government by 

integrating fishing interests, state regulators, community leaders, and others more directly in collecting 

and analyzing data and making real-time management decisions. For example, fishermen can provide 

ship time for data collection that the agency might otherwise not be able to undertake (as has been 

done in the Pacific whiting fishery); cooperative associations can share data among their members in 

order to avoid bycatch hot spots (as happens with the risk pools in the Pacific IFQ trawl fishery); state or 

local government officials can set specific management measures for anglers within their jurisdictions 

(as Alaska does in its management of the salmon fishery) and university-based scientists can update 

stock assessments (as occurs in the joint stock assessment process for New England scallops). This 

approach, when coupled with advances in information technology, can provide fishermen and fishing 

communities with the flexibility to find the most efficient ways to comply with conservation mandates. 

Congress has made clear that implementing co-management is a priority. Section 318 of the MagnusonStevens Act provides that “[t]he Secretary . . . in consultation with the Councils, shall establish a 

cooperative research and management program” and that this “program shall be implemented on a 

regional basis and shall be developed and conducted through partnerships among Federal, State, and 

Tribal managers and scientists . . . fishing industry participants . . . , and educational institutions.” 16 

51
Dr. Sullivan 

November 25, 2013 

Page 2 

U.S.C. § 1867(a)-(b). Under this section, funding is available for projects that “address critical needs 

identified by the Councils in consultation with the Secretary” and “form part of a coherent program of 

research focused on solving priority issues identified by the Councils.” Id. § 1867(c). 

Most of the agency’s efforts to fulfill this statutory obligation have focused on cooperative research, but 

that research often addresses a collection of disjointed topics rather than constituting a “coherent 

program focused on solving priority issues identified by the Councils.” Id. In some cases, agency staff 

discount the value fishery participants can add in the co-management context, and there is little 

guidance about data, information, and analyses that would be most helpful to NOAA’s efforts or how to 

bring specific co-management ideas forward. As a result of this largely ad hoc approach to cooperative 

management and research, NOAA misses out on an important opportunity to improve management and 

build communication and trust with its constituents.

To harness the innovation of the private sector and other levels of government, we recommend that 

NOAA create a clear process for establishing new co-management relationships. Publishing guidance 

pursuant to Sec. 318 would send a signal to stakeholders that the agency intends to involve fishery 

participants and others more meaningfully in developing co-management solutions. The guidance 

should reflect the advice of stakeholder groups including fishery representatives, academics, 

nongovernmental organizations, other experts, and the fishery management councils. 

Beyond such guidance, the agency currently has three ongoing regulatory processes that could address 

impediments to co-management. First, in revising the rules on confidentiality of fisheries data, NOAA 

should take steps to facilitate data sharing among fishery participants in co-management partnerships. 

Most fishery monitoring data flows from the dock to the agency. Fishermen’s associations rely on 

routine downloads of these official data to inform their operational decisions. While there are a number 

of logistical, technical, and regulatory limits to this data sharing, agency staff often cite confidentiality 

concerns in response to requests by fishermen to do so. Clarifying confidentiality regulations to provide 

procedures for voluntary data sharing would facilitate important collaboration. 

 

Second, the pending guidance on electronic monitoring and reporting (EM/ER) should recommend that 

fishery management councils permit fishermen who participate in cooperatives or similar associations to 

submit monitoring data collected through their organizations so that members need not submit reports 

via both private data collection systems and government logbooks and trip reports. This change would 

reduce the reporting burden on fishermen, improve data timing and quality, and reduce the cost of 

monitoring. The guidance should also fully address how third-party data collection systems could be 

incorporated into management of recreational fisheries. 

Third, the agency should provide guidance on cost recovery under section 303A(d) that improves the 

consistency and transparency of its application at the regional level, and that explicitly recognizes and 

credits the value of management functions assumed by the affected fleet. Under Section 303A(d), 

NOAA may assess fees to cover the incremental additional costs of management, data collection and 

analysis, and enforcement activities under a Limited Access Privilege Program. NMFS published a 

technical paper that described implementation of this provision in November 2007.1

 Since then, 

however, cost recovery procedures around the United States have been inconsistent and confusing, 

which impedes co–management efforts. 

 

1

 The Design and Use of Limited Access Privilege Programs. 2007. Lee Anderson and Mark Holliday, editors. Pp. 

89-95. 

52
Dr. Sullivan 

November 25, 2013 

Page 3 

NMFS should be specific about the incremental management costs to be covered by the fee. Cost 

recovery fees should follow a clear legal framework and be consistent with national implementation 

guidance. In many fisheries, the industry has undertaken management activities through a cooperative 

or other co-management arrangement, and the agency should credit the value of those functions in the 

agency’s cost recovery calculations. Failing to do so in a consistent and transparent manner deters 

fishermen who would otherwise be willing to invest directly in improving fishery management. 

Finally, we note that if a party outside NOAA Fisheries wants to help pay for a research project or a stock 

assessment, the agency’s perceived inability to receive funds from partners is a barrier to comanagement. We urge the agency to provide a definitive answer as to whether it may accept these 

contributions from third parties and, if not, to work with Congress to create a mechanism for doing so. 

Such a system could enable a more cooperative relationship between NOAA Fisheries and outside 

parties who wish to enhance the ability of the agency to conduct research on specific stocks, for 

instance, as a way to reduce the precautionary buffers necessitated by limited data or infrequent stock 

assessments. 

Our coalition recognizes that NOAA Fisheries is being asked to do much while public funding and 

resources are limited and capacity in the private sector is left untapped. Addressing the pressing 

problems facing fishery management today through co-management is an ‘everybody wins’ proposition 

for the private sector, the government, and the resource. We have found that there is substantial 

common ground among different interests on this issue, and we would like the opportunity to meet 

with you and your senior staff to discuss our ideas on making co-management work for all of us. Thank 

you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Madsen 

Executive Director 

At-sea Processors Association 

(Former Chair, North Pacific Fishery Management Council) 

Jim Martin 

Conservation Director 

Berkley Conservation Institute, Pure Fishing 

John Pappalardo 

CEO 

Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance 

(Former Chair, New England Fishery Management Council) 

53
Dr. Sullivan 

November 25, 2013 

Page 4 

Michael Conathan 

Director of Ocean Policy 

Center for American Progress 

Michael De Alessi Ph.D. 

(Research Scientist-School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington) 

Amanda Leland 

Vice President, Oceans 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Keith Guindon 

Board Member 

Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance 

Ray Hilborn, Ph.D. 

Professor-School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences 

University of Washington 

William T. Hogarth, Ph.D. 

(Former Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

Steven Murawski, Ph.D. 

(Former Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor, National Marine Fisheries Service) 

54
Dr. Sullivan 

November 25, 2013 

Page 5 

Erika Feller 

Program Director, North American Fisheries 

The Nature Conservancy 

/s/ 

John Oliver 

Retired 

(Former Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service) 

Scott Rayder 

Senior Advisor to the President 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

(Former Chief of Staff, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 

Director, Center for Science and Democracy 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

(Former Deputy Director, National Marine Fisheries Service) 

Karl Haflinger 

President 

Sea State, Inc. 

/s/ 

Joe Sullivan 

Partner 

Sullivan & Richards LLP 

Robert E. Dooley 

President 

United Catcher Boats 

55
56

Appendix 3: DOC Legal Compendium
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78