NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-195

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2005

A Large Marine Ecosystem

Voluntary Environmental

Management System Approach

to Fisheries Practices
177. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Smooth Skate, Malacoraja senta, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 26 p., 15 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104256.

178. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 39 p., 18 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104255.

179. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 57 p., 25 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-

104254.

180. Variability in Blood Chemistry of Yellowtail Flounder, Limanda ferruginea, with Regard to Sex, Season, and Geographic

Location. By Renee Mercaldo-Allen, Margaret A. Dawson, Catherine A. Kuropat, and Diane Kapareiko. September 2003. vi + 20 p., 1

fig., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-107074.

181. Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an Evaluation

of the Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat. By David Stevenson, Louis Chiarella, Dianne Stephan, Robert Reid, Kurt

Wilhelm, John McCarthy, and Michael Pentony. January 2004. ix + 179 p., 34 figs., 83 tables. [Online publication only.]

182. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2003. By Gordon T. Waring, Richard M. Pace, Janeen

M. Quintal, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds., Nicole Cabana, Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Gregory L. Fulling,

Lance P. Garrison, Aleta A. Hohn, Blair G. Maise, Wayne E. McFee, Keith D. Mullin, Debra L. Palka, Patricia E. Rosel, Marjorie C. Rossman,

Frederick W. Wenzel, and Amy L. Whitingham, contribs. May 2004. vii + 287 p., 47 figs., 58 tables, 4 app., index. NTIS Access. No.

PB2004-106431.

183. NOAA Fisheries Service's Large Marine Ecosystems Program: Status Report. By Kenneth Sherman, Peter Celone, and Sally

Adams. July 2004. iv + 21 p., 11 figs., 4 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-102420.

184. A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management and Sustainability. By Frank J. Gable. August 2004. v +

84 p., 38 figs., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-101435. [Online publication only.]

185. Revised and Updated Edition of F. Bruce Sanford's 1957 "Planning Your Scientific Research Paper." By Jon A. Gibson.

August 2004. x + 36 p., 5 figs., 12 tables.

186. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Silver Hake, Merluccius bilinearis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By Meredith C. Lock and David B. Packer. August 2004. v + 68 p., 28 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-101436. [Online

publication only.]

187. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: American Plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Donna L. Johnson. August 2004. vi + 72 p., 23 figs., 6 tables. [Online publication only.]

188. In preparation by authors.

189. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By Deborah R. Hart and Antonie S. Chute. September 2004. v + 21 p., 6 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-104079. [Online

publication only.]

190. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd

ed. By R. Gregory Lough. November 2004. vi + 94 p., 27 figs., 5 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-101528. [Online publication

only.]

191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access.

No. PB2005-101437. [Online publication only.]

192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online

publication only.]

193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.]

Recent Issues in This Series:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2005

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing. All issues employ

thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review.

Reviews are -- by design -- transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer

reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-195

Postal Address: University of Rhode Island, The Coastal Institute, Narragansett, RI 02882

E-Mail Address: fjgable@etal.uri.edu

A Large Marine Ecosystem

Voluntary Environmental Management System

Approach to Fisheries Practices

Frank J. Gable
Editorial Notes on This Issue

Editorial Production

This document is the fulfillment of research and analyses performed: 1) under the funding of U.S. National

Academy of Sciences, National Research Council's Research Associateship Award No. 0497420 -- "Marine Science and

Fisheries"; 2) with the assistance of the NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center's

Office of Marine Ecosystem Studies, and, Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, Social Sciences Branch; and

3) at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Narragansett (Rhode Island) Laboratory.

This document has been editorially processed as other contract reports issued in the NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE series: some formatting, but no technical or copy editing, has been performed.

[However, see "Internet Availability and Links" below.]

Content Disclaimer

Although released by NOAA, the information in this paper does not reflect, represent, or form any part

of the support of the policies of NOAA or the Department of Commerce. Further, release by NOAA does

not imply that NOAA or the Department of Commerce agrees with the information contained herein.

Internet Availability and Links

This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being copublished, i.e., as both a

paper and Web document. The Web document can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/

publications/tm/tm195/. Note that in the paper document and in the PDF version of the Web document, no

editing has been performed to ensure that any Internet addresses are viable. In the HTML version of the Web

document, though, an effort has been made to ensure such viability. Consequently, there will be a few

differences in the Internet addresses between the paper/PDF and HTML versions.
Page iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ v

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

What Is an ISO 14000 Approach to Marine Ecosystem Sustainability? ................................................................................ 1

Legitimacy for Fostering an ISO 14000 Series Protocol in the United States as Well as for Use within International Large

Marine Ecosystems ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Applications of the International VEMS Standard: ISO 14001 ............................................................................................... 8

ISO Releases ISO 14001 and ISO 14004 Revision 2004 ........................................................................................................ 12

Concluding Comments......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

Endnotes.............................................................................................................................................................................. 14

References Cited .................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Appendices

Appendix 1. Harnessing Market Forces in American Fisheries Science Policy .................................................................. 23

Appendix 2. A Socio-economic Strategy for the Ocean’s Ecosystem through Voluntary Environmental Management System(s)

in an LME Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 3. The Marine Stewardship Council as Another Example of Non-governmental Aquatic Voluntary Environmental

Management Systems .................................................................................................................................... 29

Tables

Table 1. Prospective contents of an ecosystem area management plan for sustainable fisheries ................................... 31

Table 2. Examples of ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management systems and tools .................................. 32

Table 3. Some examples of environmental policy options ............................................................................................... 33

Table 4. Comparison ISO 14001:1996 & ISO 14001:2004 .................................................................................................. 34

Table 5. Summary of suggested reasons for the inadequacy or failure of fisheries management ................................... 37

Table 6. Selected prospective stages in the policy orientation process as part of an ecosystem-oriented LME module

approach to fisheries management .................................................................................................................... 38

Table 7. National Standards to provide for the conservation and management of fisheries from the U.S. Sustainable

Fisheries Act of 1996, Public Law 104-297 October 11th ...................................................................................... 39

Figures

Figure 1. Suggested requirements of an integrated large marine ecosystem management strategy ................................. 40

Figure 2. Depiction of the “Sainsbury” ISO 14000 fishery ecosystem management strategy framework for use in a large

marine ecosystem............................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3. “Sainsbury” ISO 14001 fishery voluntary environmental management system: significant components of an

ecosystem area management plan ...................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 4. Depiction of a living marine resources ISO 14001 voluntary environmental management system for utilization in a

large marine ecosystem featuring “double loop analysis” ................................................................................. 43

Figure 5. U.S. EPA position statement on (voluntary) environmental management systems and ISO

14001 .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 6. Marine voluntary environmental management systems: a continuous cycle .................................................... 45

Figure 7. Linkage of environmental management to firm profitability encompasses market gains with cost savings ...... 46

Figure 8. Standard fisheries-related methodology for environmental impact assessments is well developed and comprises

several steps ...................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 9. Conceptual process for integrating the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act adaptive management with a

voluntary environmental management system .................................................................................................. 48

Figure 10. Conceptual framework for integrating an environmental impact assessment with a voluntary environmental management system ................................................................................................................................................. 49

Figure 11. Five-module LME strategy developed for assessing and analyzing ecosystem-wide changes in support of improved adaptive management decision practices .............................................................................................. 50
Page iv

Figure 12. Draft key elements of an ecosystem-oriented fisheries management approach for the Northeast United States

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem ....................................................................................................... 51

Figure 13. Reality of success in fisheries management relies on good management practice in sustainable fisheries ....... 52

Figure 14. Core principles for an ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management system .................................... 53

Figure 15. The ISO 14000 family of environmental-oriented standards are grouped around seven themes ....................... 54

Figure 16. Benefits and motivations associated with internationally recognized ISO 14001 certification .......................... 55

Figure 17. Adaptive management process .......................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 18. Fishing activities influence marine ecosystems in a number of ways ................................................................ 57

Figure 19. Some key decision points in an ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management system ..................... 58

Figure 20. Ecosystem-oriented approach for responsible fisheries management system encompasses several

parameters.......................................................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 21. Reforms listed are essential to speed the transition to sustainable, well-managed, and ecologically sound

fisheries .............................................................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 22. Effective ocean ecosystem stewardship is predicated on several principles that are necessarily evolutionary in

nature ................................................................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 23. Role of institutions and policy in fostering the economics for sustainable development ................................. 62

Figure 24. “Human dimensions” of fishery management .................................................................................................... 63

Figure 25. Sustainable strategies for improvements in ecosystem-oriented decision-making ............................................ 64

Acronyms

AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science

CEQ = (White House) Council on Environmental Quality

ECPA = East Coast Pelagic Association

EEZ = exclusive economic zone

EIA = environmental impact assessment/analysis

EPA = (US) Environmental Protection Agency

FAO = (UN) Food and Agricultural Organization

FDA = (US) Food and Drug Administration

FMP = fishery management plan

GIS = geographical information system

GMRI = Gulf of Maine Research Institute

GPS = global positioning system

HACCP = hazard analysis critical control points

ISO = International Organization for Standardization

ITQ = individual transferable quota

LME = large marine ecosystem

MOU = memorandum of understanding

MSC = Marine Stewardship Council

NEFMC = New England Fishery Management Council

NEPA = (US) National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

OMB = (White House) Office of Management and Budget

QMS = quality management system

S-K = Saltonstall-Kennedy Act

TAC = total allowable catch

UN = United Nations

UNEP = United Nations Environmental Programme

VEMS = voluntary environmental management system

VMS = vessel monitoring system

WSSD = World Summit on Sustainable Development

WWF = World Wide Fund for Nature
Page v

ABSTRACT

This study addresses interdisciplinary aspects of fisheries sustainability as a part of the large marine ecosystem (LME)

modular approach. Consideration is given to consensus-based voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) as

an adaptive management aspect of fishing practices being integral strategic parts of marine ecosystems. A VEMS is a unique

means or tool for managing the impacts of a fisheries enterprise’s activities on the marine environment. For sustainable

planning and implementing environmental protection measures, the VEMS provides a structured approach. A VEMS integrates environmental management quality at various scales into an organization’s everyday operations as well as its longterm planning.

The VEMS is an important “ecosystem consideration” component of the LME approach as it is intended to lead toward

improved valuation assessments and movement to sustainability of vulnerable resources. This document presents a VEMS

strategy as a prospective best practice indicator in the fish and fisheries, socio-economic, and governance modules of the

LME paradigm (see http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme). Prospective property rights regimes are considered as performance-based

regulations that restrict open access to commercial fishery resources but can accommodate the VEMS approach. The

fisheries practice VEMS, found in this study, has a geographic focus on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME but is

applicable to other domestic and/or international locales and it is meant to promote dialogue on VEMS being a scientifically

based (or best available science standard see: NRC 2004a) tool for ecosystem-oriented management of living marine resources.

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

The ISO 14001 is a known voluntary international standard that establishes the requirements for a VEMS that emphasizes an organization’s continuous improvement in environmental management quality and protection. Thus, the

objective is for an entity engaged in fishing practices to

constitute a VEMS that is integrated with its operations.

An ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management

system (VEMS) is portrayed in this document as a performance-based measure that can be utilized around the world

and as a best available science-based procedure for protecting the marine environment. Hanna (2002 p. 4) hypothesizes that the “existence of property rights (in fisheries)

would allow the focus to shift toward performance-based

regulation, where the right to fish depends on certification

of meeting specified conditions.” Taken literally, a review

and synthesis of the science literature finds that Hanna’s

hypothesis above which would include “dedicated access

privileges” in a U.S. fishery is capable of fostering performance towards sustainable ecosystem-approaches to fisheries, that is, to an ISO 14001 standard voluntary environmental management system (VEMS).

Gober (2000 p. 8) points out “modern synthesis is organized around ideas, concepts and theories. It emphasizes

discovering strategic connections...,” “it may involve linking already discovered ideas in innovative ways, in grappling with large and complicated human and natural systems, and in looking for analogies in seemingly unconnected

fields.” Thus, it is proffered that the application of voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) as outlined here will lead toward continuous improvement in large

marine ecosystem environmental quality as a science policy

tool for fostering stakeholder participation toward sustaining living marine resources. The document commences with

an overview of what a voluntary VEMS approach to ecosystem sustainability encompasses. From there the focus

is on “legitimacy” of specific VEMS protocols for use in

living marine resource sustainability principally in the United

States prior to elaboration on the international VEMS standard known as an ISO 14001.

Case examples are provided in Appendix One, in relation to “market forces” in American fisheries management,

including contemporary herring-haddock interactions in the

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem.

The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) paradigm is briefly reviewed as an adaptive stewardship strategy in Appendix

Two, followed by a short discussion on the Marine Stewardship Council as another “new” VEMS in fisheries. An

approach to “certification” in VEMS is given in Appendix

Three. The manuscript contains figures and tables that

illustrate and highlight specific key points and concepts for

the reader.

One suggestion for integrating marine species management into a workable ecosystem-oriented voluntary environmental management system (VEMS), can include

partnering to maximize the potential for achieving objectives (see Figure 1). To enhance global, regional, or local

accountability, a marine life management system should recognize and address the overall ecosystem (see: Sherman &

Duda 1999a&b; von Zharen 1998 p. 106). Dobson et al.,

(2005 p. 488) refer to “human dimensions” “as the study

and practice of human values related to natural resources,

how those values impact and are manifested in management, and how humans affect or are affected by natural

resources management decisions” (see also: Hennessey

and Sutinen, 2005). “Challenges of integrating ecological

and human dimensions of management remain as important

today as they were forty years ago” (Dobson et al., 2005 p.

487). The human dimension is at the very core of the fishing and seafood industries (Kaplan and McCay, 2004 p.

258). It is also of note that according to Daily et al., (2000 p.

396) “in a democratic society, values used in social decision-making ought to be derived from those held by its

individual citizens and ought not be imposed by the state.”

The ISO 14000 family of standards is depicted and elaborated herein as a tool to foster voluntary and sustainable

human-environment interactions.

WHAT IS AN ISO 14000 APPROACH TO MARINE ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY?

The International Organization for Standardization ISO

14000 series is a recognizable developing flexible methodology for organizations seeking to incorporate internationally and/or domestic defensible environmental management

policy into their marine business operations. The ISO is a

Geneva-based registered non-governmental, international

organization and facilitator of international standards in industrial and environmental practice. Its members are governmental standardization organizations from 120 nations,

including the United States. Motivated to foster world trade

after World War II, it was created in 1946 to initially address

electronic, communication, trade, and manufacturing standards. Traditionally, ISO standards are embraced on a voluntary basis, yet select countries have regularly adopted

them, thereby making them obligatory (Sproul, 1998a and

1998b p. 141).

From a historical perspective Sproul (1998b p. 141) relates that in the early 1980’s ISO branched out to develop

total quality management standards and life cycle analysis.

In 1987, the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) issued the ISO 9000 series standards for business

management and manufacturing (Eccleston, 2003 p. 61; see
Page 2

also Benezech et al., 2001). Concern for environmental quality eventually led ISO to focus and negotiate on developing similar standards for a transparent voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) that could be used internationally. Thus building on the ISO 9000 model, the

initial generic standards governing the ISO 14000 series

VEMS were adopted and published in September of 1996.

Analogous to its sibling ISO 9000, the ISO 14000 series

describes management procedures rather than specific environmental performance standards (Eccleston, 2003 p. 61).

Aspects of ISO 9000 have subsequently been incorporated

into international policy to “facilitate trade and

remove...barriers” (Sproul, 1998b p. 141). In 1992, the ISO

Technical Board authorized establishment of Technical

Committee number 207 (TC 207). This bureau whose secretariat is in Ottawa with the Canadian Standards Association, was tasked with the responsibility to oversee and coordinate the diversity of activity associated with international voluntary environmental management systems

(VEMS) development. In 1993, the ISO established a Technical Committee (TC207) that consisted of representatives

from participating nations the world over, to develop and

produce a set of unified, voluntary standards for environmental management that could be accepted and implemented

worldwide (Quazi et al., 2001 p. 526). The ISO 14000 standard has been developed to help any organization (entity)

in any country to meet the goal of “sustainable development” and environmental friendliness (Quazi et al., 2001 p.

527), important ingredients in LME-oriented fisheries science policy. The ISO has accumulated extensive inter-governmental and ministerial networking at the national policy

development level and has considerable historical international standardization experience. Therefore, many international researchers and also American policy makers (see:

Connaughton, 2002a; and 2001) suggest or advocate an

ISO 14000 protocol ought to be pursued (see later).

The ISO 14000 standards are international voluntary

consensus standards (Quazi et al., 2001 p. 526). These industrial practice standards were developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), located in

Geneva, Switzerland. The goal of the ISO is to develop

standards on a worldwide basis to allow commerce to transcend national boundaries without creating trade barriers

(Quazi et al., 2001 p. 526). This is a goal that complements

and can be practiced within the internationally recognized

large marine ecosystem (LME) delineated areas whose

marine living resources are typically marketed and traded

via negotiated international agreements, since international

trade in seafood is now valued at about U.S. $60 billion

annually (Mansfield, 2003 p. 1). The standards are process

oriented they do not in and of themselves impose or establish goals or limits. Instead, they establish voluntary environmental management system guidelines or guidance that

help organizations (entities) ensure compliance with customer, industry or regulatory limits and/or requirements.

They can be considered “rooted in the concept of ecosystem sustainability” (see Baragne, 2003 p. 196) and criterion

for “best practices.” (see: e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000 p. 732).

According to von Zharen (1998 p. 85), she notes that the

VEMS must have public and prospectively global support

in order for comprehensive measures to improve these efforts. This would include support for international collaboration in marine scientific research and the development of

“best practices.” (e.g., Sainsbury et al., 2000; Sainsbury

and Sumaila, 2003; Gable, 2004).

According to Sainsbury et al., (2000 p. 732), fishery

management is “implemented at the operational level

through management plans, administrative regulations, and

the decisions of individual managers or management bodies.” Choices and tradeoffs often need to be made concerning which of several alternative management actions provides the best social and environmental compromise among

conflicting objectives. Therefore it’s necessary to be able

to forecast the likely consequences of prospective management actions to the targeted objectives. This may entail

answering questions such as: what specific outcomes are

intended by the management action?; what information is

needed to support management decisions?; and how would

success or failure be measured and detected (Sainsbury, et

al., 2000 p. 732)?

Broad policy goals are linked to individual management

actions at the operational level, and through operational

management strategies. Sainsbury et al., (2000 p. 732; Figures 2, 3) suggests that the general framework for operational management strategies is described in many standards, such as the International Standards Organization

ISO 14000 standards for environmental management systems. Accordingly, they suggest the ISO 14000 and other

such frameworks emphasize the combination of: A) synoptically evaluating the performance of the management system as a whole (not just isolated parts); B) specifying measurable targets and performance measures that relate to the

objectives; C) monitoring the managed system; D) iterative

and “feed-back” decision-making based on monitoring data

e.g. “double loop analysis;” E) developing a procedure for

implementing management decisions; and, F) evaluating

organizational environmental performance.

“Development and evaluation of operational management strategies to achieve broadly stated management objectives is neither easy nor straightforward, although considerable progress has been achieved during the last two

decades, at least for target species. The scientific methods

for evaluating fishery-management strategies were advanced through ‘adaptive management’ mechanisms”

(Sainsbury et al., 2000 p. 732 and references cited therein).

It is noted that Jentoft (1998 p. 181) proffers that there is no

“consensus as to what constitutes relevant knowledge and

information in fisheries management. Neither is there any

widespread agreement on goals or means.”

The aims of the ISO 14000 series are to provide guidance for developing a comprehensive approach to environmental management and for standardizing some noteworthy and recognizable environmental tools of analysis such

as (environmental) labeling and life cycle assessment appli-
Page 3

cable to the fishing industry as a whole. Allison (2001, p.

945) writes that an ISO 14000 series VEMS is capable of

addressing many of the necessary conditions for ‘green

chain’ life cycle-oriented certification from production to

disposal (see also Sproul, 1998a&b).

The standards are meant to be complementary to national regulatory regimes and are not intended to replace or

duplicate a country’s regulatory system (Quazi et al., 2001

p. 527). In effect, use of a VEMS is designed to demonstrate

an organization’s facilitation and knowledge of environmental sustainability commitments in a transparent documented manner. Thus, the ISO 14000 series VEMS traditionally consists of five principles as depicted in Figure 4.

The most commonly used framework for a VEMS is the

one developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the ISO 14001 standard. Established

in 1996, this framework is the official international standard

for a VEMS (EPA, 2005). The five main stages of a VEMS, as

defined by the ISO 14001 standard are discussed below

(see also Figure 4):

1. Commitment and Policy: top management (e.g. fisheries permit holder, boat captain, vessel owner, executive director of a fisheries organization) commits to

environmental improvement and establishes an enterprise wide environmental policy with attainable objectives and goals. The policy thus becomes the foundation of the VEMS, and the benchmark for performance

evaluation that occurs later.

2. Planning: by example, a fisheries organization first

identifies environmental aspects of its operations. Environmental aspects are those items, such as indirect

and regulatory bycatch, discards, highgrading, etc.,

which can have detrimental cascading impacts on the

large marine ecosystem. In general, the organization

then determines which aspects are significant by

choosing criteria considered most important by the

organization within the constraints of applicable prevailing legislation. For example, a fisheries organization may choose crew safety and health, environmental compliance, and cost as its criteria. Once significant environmental aspects are determined, an organization sets specified objectives and targets. An objective is an overall environmental goal (e.g. minimize

bycatch and discards). A target is a detailed, quantified requirement that arises from the objectives (e.g.

reduction of bycatch of groundfish by 25% by September 2006). The final part of the planning stage is

devising an action plan for meeting the targets (e.g.,

Wu and Hunt, 2000). This includes designating (crew)

responsibilities, establishing a schedule and timeline,

and outlining clearly defined steps to meet the targets

(EPA, 2005).

3. Implementation: an organization follows through with

the action plan using the necessary resources (human, financial, etc.). An important component is organization – for instance crew training and awareness

for all hands, or employees of a fish processing plant.

Other steps in the implementation stage include documentation, following operating procedures, and setting up internal and external communication lines for

interested stakeholders and consumers or publicly

traded company shareholders. Then the enterprise

using “best available scientific” methodology (see e.g.

NRC 2004a) evaluates its environmental performance

to see whether its objectives and targets are being

met.

4. Evaluation and Monitoring: an organization monitors

its operations to evaluate whether its targets are being met, if not, the organization takes appropriate adjustment corrective action (e.g. avoiding areas of juvenile fish or in-season spawning grounds; gear adjustments). Oftentimes for more efficiency the evaluation is performed by an independent accredited third

party, that can lead toward “certification.”

5. Review: top management reviews the results of the

evaluation to see if the VEMS is functioning as designed. Management determines whether the original

environmental policy is consistent with organizational

values. The action plan is then revised to optimize the

effectiveness of the VEMS. The review stage creates

a double loop of analysis of continuous improvement

and learning for an organization in a transparent fashion (see also Benezech et al., 2001; Figure 5). The cycle

(i.e. “double-loop analysis”) repeats, and continuous

improvement occurs, all within a framework of adaptive management to government regulations and industry “best practices” (see e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000;

Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003; Gable, 2004).

According to Eccleston and Smythe (2002 p. 2) one

objective of the ISO 14000 VEMS series is to provide organizations with an internationally consistent system for controlling, measuring, and ultimately reducing the environmental impacts generated by their ongoing business operations. It may also help managers to better implement fisheries catch permitted or allocation mechanisms in a more environmentally sustainable manner. Without further specific

elaboration here, by example, ISO 14001 specifications describe a multitude of elements that need to be contained in

any VEMS that is to receive certification to International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards.

Like its predecessor sibling, ISO 9000 life cycle standards, the 14000 series focuses on management standards,

not on specific performance standards and procedures because these are left to individual countries or entities, that

can adaptively apply them to their specific needs and environmental situation. This would work well in differentiated

boreal, temperate, tropic, oceanic, and semi-enclosed LME’s

throughout the world. Unlike Environmental Impact Assessment/Analysis (EIA), the ISO 14001 VEMS protocol

was designed specifically for competitive entity’s (see also:
Page 4

Hart, 1995) to adopt on a voluntary basis (Eccleston and

Smythe 2002 p. 2).

According to Darnall (2001, p. 2) ISO 14001 is based on

Shewhart’s (1931) “plan, do, check, act” model towards

achieving continuous improvement (see also Blackburn,

2004; Figure 6). Darnall emphasizes that by using this framework, organizations systematically take into consideration

their environmental aspects and impacts. They do so, as

depicted earlier, by taking into account five broad factors:

an environmental policy, evaluation and goal setting, implementation, monitoring and corrective action procedures,

and management review. By processing through each step

of the cycle the aim (goal) of the organization (entity) is to

achieve lower environmental impact of goods, products,

services, or information, thus, providing for environmental

sustainable ecosystem development. It is represented

graphically as a circle or wheel (see Figure 4) because it

involves repeating the same steps over and over in a continuous effort to improve operational processes. It is akin

to “double loop analysis” that Olsen (1999; Olsen et al.,

1998) subscribes to in integrated coastal area management

(for suggested contents of an ecosystem area management

plan for sustainable fisheries see Table 1). Organizations

which certify to ISO 14001 typically would have independent external auditors review and verify their VEMS to make

sure that it conforms to the five broad categorical factors

(Darnall, 2001 p. 2).

At a more advanced level, ISO 14001 VEMSs have the

potential to move organizations towards embracing, for example, seafood product stewardship principles and utilizing life-cycle cost analysis (Brown and Sylvia, 1994). In

doing so, ISO 14001 may help firms to better scrutinize the

environmental impact of their services, and develop closer

working relationships with ownership and “crew,” thus elevating and evaluating environmental concerns throughout the organization (Darnall, 2001 p. 3; Hart, 1995). If entities consider holistically all aspects of their organizational

structure, this awareness may facilitate the prevention of

shifting environmental harm from one subsystem to another

or rather, one directed fishery to another non-permitted resource. Such management practices, however, require

proficiencies in transferring knowledge and generating

momentum among human capacity to proactively manage

their environmental footprint. The example of alleviating

incidental and regulatory bycatch and discards by fishing

vessels is a prime statutory contemporary example (Powers, 2005; Hall and Mainprize, 2005). From the perspective

of Jennings and Zandbergen (1995 pp. 1040 & 1041) they

also require an ability to push environmental initiatives deep

into the organization’s “lessons learned psyche” to create

congruence (harmony) across the strategic, structural and

learning systems to foster and ensure ecosystem

sustainability. These factors in combination assist business to achieve greater organizational efficiency (Hart, 1995

p.988) and are critical for achieving proactive environmental sustainability. They are also crucial in assisting organizations (firms) to maintain or gain competitive advantage

(e.g. Hart, 1995 p. 987; Figure 7) especially in regulated industries such as fisheries where “dedicated access privileges” may become the 21st century norm in the United

States (CEQ, 2004); what Hart (1995 p. 995) refers to as

“preferred access” to important, but limited resources.

As many of those who follow the regulated fishing industry know, the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) regulations provide detailed requirements for performing a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect, and

cumulative environmental impacts (see e.g., Eccleston and

Smythe 2002 p. 6; Boling, 2005). The ISO 14000 standards

requires that a VEMS includes investigation of significant

“environmental aspects,” which are specific activities that

affect the marine environment. Although these environmental aspects must be determined, rigorous evaluation of

their resulting consequences or impacts on environmental

resources is neither mandatory nor required especially in a

scenario style command and control regulatory framework

environment.

Eccleston and Smythe (2002 p. 8) proffer that in practice, however, there is no reason why Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) and VEMS processes either could or

should not proceed in tandem (see also Boling, 2005). The

aim or goal being a properly integrated EIA/VEMS, to ensure that monitoring plans are effectively designed and executed. (Eccleston and Smythe 2002 p. 8). Monitoring is

also a paramount tool in LME science policy to measure

environmental conditions over time (see; e.g. Sherman, 1994;

Sherman and Duda, 1999a & b). Integration of EIA/VEMS

is especially appropriate where government decisions are

required, and where government (or government-regulated)

enterprises will carry out the operations. The EIA (e.g.

Figure 8) can identify the kinds of significant impacts that a

VEMS should address, and the VEMS can then ensure that

adequate monitoring, reporting, and self-correcting take

place in a transparent mode. (For another view of the EIA

see Gray, 1999).

Eccleston (2003 p. 61) maintains that strong parallels

exist between the scope, aims and objectives of adaptive

management, the requirements of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the specifications for

implementing an ISO 14000-consistent VEMS (see Figures

9, 10). Seymour and Ridley (2005 p. 322) proffer that an ISO

14001 VEMS approach can be synergistically incorporated

into an integrated catchment or watershed management protocol, which is in effect, the linked “landward” portion of

large marine ecosystems.

Boling (2005 p. 10026) advises that a “VEMS is a policy

and management approach that may be particularly applicable for adaptive management of actions subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review” in the

United States. Boling (2005 p. 10026) emphasizes that the

“plan-do-check-act/continual improvement approach (see

also Darnall, 2001 p. 2; Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000 p. 501)

used by ISO 14001 and similar models has proven to be
Page 5

effective as applied to environmental management” (see

Figure 6). With regard to elements of VEMS and NEPA

programs an ISO 14001 protocol “provides a credible framework for identifying and meeting the legal and other obligations that are established through the public process. It

does not pretend to intrude upon authorities of government agencies to define goals for environmental performance.” Thus, an ISO 14001 VEMS does not replace NEPA,

but rather provides a systematic framework for effectively

identifying and meeting NEPA obligations (Boling, 2005 p.

10026). Boling (2005 p. 10029) states that the ISO 14001

standard “requires that an organization establish and maintain procedures for taking action to mitigate any impacts

caused, and for initiating and completing corrective and

preventive action.” The “plan, do, check, act” approach of

ISO 14001 is intended to encourage organizations to integrate a VEMS into their normal every-day activities (Boling,

2005).

The ISO 14001 VEMSs are principled on a highly systematic framework that at a basic level focuses on various

environmental strategies which minimize waste and prevent

pollution (e.g. including fisheries driftnets i.e. ghost fishing; bycatch, discards and highgrading) (Darnall, 2001 p.

3). These strategies are people intensive, and depend upon

concerted skill development through employee or “crew”

involvement (e.g., Hart, 1995 p. 988) and work in teams (e.g.,

Hart, 1995 p. 989). They also rely on substantial internal

organizational evaluation, monitoring, knowledge development, and operational factors (Darnall, 2001 p. 3, Hart, 1995).

They are a “best practices” match for organizations (entities) with either fishery business operations or scientific

study in large marine ecosystems (see: Sainsbury et. al.,

2000 p. 732; Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003; Gable, 2004). In

effect, they fit well within the LME modular approach (see

e.g. Figures 11, 12, 13; Sherman, 2005; Sherman and Duda,

1999 a&b) with a focus in the socio-economic, fish and

fisheries, and governance modules.

According to Sproul, (1998a&b) an international organizational standard (ISO) framework ought to be utilized for

developing broad principles of sustainable fishery certification, within which fishery specific specifications could

be provided. He maintains that several standards for fisheries principles exist, for example, including the voluntary

United Nations (UN) “Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries” (see: Garcia, 2000), and the UN Conference on

Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

which entered into force in 2001 (Sproul, 1998b p. 140). The

latter is an adjunct to the Third United Nations Conference

on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982). The “voluntary”

United Nations based 1995 “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” and the International Standardization Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) ISO 14001 voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) protocol provide a

baseline and standards “that are based on an inventory of

what exists (in science, technology, experience and usual

practices, etc.) in relation to some observations” (Benezech

et al., 2001 p. 1396). It can be argued that the “Code of

Conduct...” may be considered to be emerging international

customary law (see Belsky, 1990; Belsky, 1985). To facilitate

global large marine ecosystem (LME) acceptance and implementation of “sustainable fisheries (and aquaculture) principles,” they ought to be framed within a broad purview of

environmental management system standards (Sproul, 1998b

p. 140).

LEGITIMACY FOR FOSTERING AN ISO 14000 SERIES PROTOCOL

IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS FOR USE

WITHIN INTERNATIONAL LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS (LMEs)

The movement from concept to an applied standard

should stand the test of legitimacy. In the U.S., the presence of legitimacy is discussed by James L. Connaughton

who is the present chairman of the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (a bureau that coordinates federal environmental efforts in the development of environmental policies

and initiatives). Connaughton (2002a p. 2) mentions the

“U.S. government has been an ardent supporter and believer in the international standards process, and specifically, the ISO 14000 family of environmental standards.” He

emphasizes the “ISO 14000 series of standards ... provides

recognizable, transparent, and flexible models and tools for

managing environmental issues. These international standards have been developed by consensus of a world-wide

collection of experts, and allows us to operate effectively

without having individual government entities create their

own protocols and guidelines.” Further, he reiterated that

U.S. federal agencies must use existing international standards instead of creating their own requirements or standards because the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, (passed in March of 1996; Public Law 104-

113) mandates that as policy (Connaughton 2002a; U.S.

Congress, 1996 a&b).

Zwight (2004, p. 35) highlights that in the United States

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

“requires that federal agencies adopt, where possible, technical standards developed by consensus organizations. The

ISO 14000 series of environmental standards were developed through the consensus processes of the International

Organization for Standardization and were adopted by the

American National Standards Institute.” “Environmental

management systems’ can provide a structure for effective

adaptive management of natural resources and continual

improvement of environmental performance. Environmental management systems’ could help new science and information to be quickly integrated into the analytical base to
Page 6

be used not only to account for broad management effects

and natural events at the plan level but also to provide a

refreshed and current base of information” to be used in

connection with fishery planning where an “environmental

management system approach has been endorsed by the

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)”

(Zwight, 2004 p. 33).

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995, which passed on March 7, 1996 (Public Law

104-113), codified requiring federal agencies to adopt and

use standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies and to work closely with those organizations

to ensure that the developed standards are consistent with

agency needs and with Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A-119 (House Report No. 104-390 Legislative History; Public Law 104-113 Section 12: Standards Conformity). OMB Circular A-119 was revised on February 10,

1998 to coincide with Public Law 104-113 of March 7, 1996.

OMB Circular A-119 policy in Section 6 states “[A]ll federal

agencies (or other establishment of the Federal Government) must use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of

government unique standards in their government and regulatory activities except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.” Section 6(e) mentions “when properly

conducted, standards development increase productivity

and efficiency in government and industry (e.g. Bodal, 2003),

expand opportunities for international trade, conserve resources, improve health and safety, and protect the environment.” (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1998,

see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/

a119.html, online available May 14, 2005). von Zharen (1995

p. 12) highlights “there is today a seemingly unlimited potential for noncompliance with marine and coastal resources

environmental regimes because these regimes are a patchwork of sometimes overlapping and contradictory law.”

Early experience in the U.S. with voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) was legally required for

federal agencies via Presidential Executive Order 13148 of

April, 2000 (Presidential Documents, 2000). The Order included tacit reference to ISO 14001 (see: Environmental Protection Agency 1996, – Code of Environmental Management Principles Federal Register Vol. No. 61 (201) at p. 54062,

October 16, 1996)... “or use another alternative environmental management system, e.g. ISO 14001.” Pilot initiatives posited through or by U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) indicated that this bureau encouraged use

of VEMS, and ISO 14001 as “the predominant model, as the

foundation tool for best management practice efforts” when

organizations seek enhanced environmental performance

through voluntary mechanisms (Connaughton, 2002a p. 3).

“The administration is committed to greening the government (Executive Order 13148 of April 21, 2000) and ensuring that Federal agencies do seek to minimize harm to

the nation’s natural resources. The Clean Marina program

is an existing voluntary partnership between the Federal

government, states, and private marinas that promote state

certification of marinas that practice good environmental

stewardship in areas such as pollution prevention and waste

management;” it also may be applicable in recreational (forhire; party/charter) fisheries. Executive Order 13148 of April

21, 2000 (Greening the Government Through Leadership in

Environmental Management) has as one of its goals (Part 2,

Section 201) the development and implementation of environmental management systems. Part 4 Sec. 401 of said

Order requires that “each agency shall conduct an agencylevel environmental management system self assessment

based on the Code of Environmental Management Principles for Federal Agencies developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (61 Federal Register 54062,

October 16, 1996) and/or another appropriate environmental management system framework.” The Code of Environmental Management Principles by the EPA (Federal RegisterVol. 61, No. 201 pp. 54061-54066, October 16, 1996) specifically makes reference to ISO 14001 voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) as another alternative

environmental management system that is endorsed to be

used1,2,3,4,5 (see also Figure 5).

Connaughton (2002a p. 4) posits the viewpoint that use

of the ISO 14000 family of standards including the “environmental performance evaluation guidance documents will

be very helpful in our effort to develop relevant environmental indicators and relevant metrics.” Because “ relevant”

marine environmental indicators (metrics) exist within the

modular large marine ecosystem (LME) framework used

throughout the globe and, since autumn 2004 the United

Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas

Programme is officially “linked with Large Marine Ecosystems assessment and management,” use of an ISO 14001

VEMS is compatible as part of this new partnership (see

e.g. Connaughton 2002a; UNEP, 2004; Laffoley et al., 2004;

Sherman, 2005).

Under Presidential Executive Order 13366 of December

17, 2004 – Committee on Ocean Policy – functions of the

committee provides for “voluntary regional approaches with

respect to ocean-related matters (including natural resources) (sec 4(d)(ii), perhaps this could include an ISO

14001 VEMS “voted” for by a regional fishery management

council for select fishery management plans seeking an ecosystem-oriented approach to sustainability. Another committee function is the “use of science in establishment of

policy on ocean-related matters” (sec 4(d)(iii)) (Presidential

Documents, 2004a; see also Presidential Documents, 2004b).

The large marine ecosystem (LME) paradigm is a sciencebased approach to the assessment and management of living resources that considers the human dimension in meeting policy challenges in an adaptive manner (see: e.g.

Hennessey and Sutinen, 2005).

“The United States will promote, within the United Nations Environment Program’s regional seas programs and

by international fisheries bodies, the use of the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept as a tool for enabling ecosystem-based management to provide a collaborative approach to management of resources within ecologically

bounded transnational areas. This will be done in an inter-
Page 7

national context and consistent with customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” (U.S. Ocean Action Plan, December 17, 2004 see: http://www.whitehouse.gov; CEQ, 2004;

see also Belsky, 1985). “Our policies will encourage innovation and employ economic incentives over mandates where

possible.” And, “the Administration will continue to work

towards an ecosystem-based approach in making decisions

related to water, land, and resource management...” An immediate and long-term action highlight is to “work with

regional fisheries councils to promote greater use of a market-based system for fisheries management.” The Ocean

Action Plan facilitates the establishment of a “new interagency working group on ocean resources management”

whose functions would include identification of “opportunities for improvements in the application of science for

ecosystem-based management of ocean resources.”

In the United States, the administration is “encouraging market-based incentives to adjust harvest capacity in a

fishery can help end the race for fish, improve product quality, enhance safety at sea, and make fishing operations more

efficient, ultimately improving the livelihood of those who

depend on them” (CEQ 2004). It is also noteworthy that the

Coastal Zone Management Act system is a “voluntary”

program between the federal government and the states

with many incentives for participation offered by the federal government.

Stated objectively “both in concept and practice, the

environmental management system approach meshes well

with the Administration’s management objectives. It provides the platform for meeting federal stewardship goals as

well as the management tools to measure and improve performance against these goals” (Connaughton, 2002a p. 4).

Connaughton (2004 p. 4) points out by reference “state and

local governments in the U.S. also are very interested in

environmental management system, with many both incorporating support of the use of an environmental management system by the regulated community, and they themselves implementing an environmental management system” (see for Northeast U.S. examples: Swift, 2002 and Connecticut, 1999).

In Massachusetts under Executive Order 438 of July

23rd 2002 “state sustainability program” the State

Sustainability Coordinating Council “shall collect, maintain,

evaluate and disseminate best environmental practices being undertaken by individual state agencies to promote

sustainable environmental practices and procedures

throughout all state agencies” (Swift 2002). For agencies

with “multiple environmental impacts an environmental

management system will be the most appropriate method of

establishing agency-wide procedures to meet the goals of

this order.” This program cross referenced federal departmental environmental management system policies (letters,

memorandums) including ISO 14000 protocols (see: http://

www.mass.gov/envir/sustainable/default.htm). Therefore,

with the state’s Director of Marine Fisheries, a voting member of the New England Fishery Management Council, a

selection of these “agency” sustainable environmental practices can be introduced into “federally consistent” fisheries policies as required in the voluntary programmatic application of the Coastal Zone Management Act 1972 as

amended, which Massachusetts is a long-time participant.

For an opposing view to New England Fishery Management Council policy, see Sanchirico and Hanna, (2004).

As a bureau within the executive branch, specifically

the “White House”, the Council of Environmental Quality

(CEQ) through its chairman notes “the Bush Administration is actively promoting and supporting the implementation of environmental management system(s) ... CEQ has

expertise on the ISO 14000 series as well as understanding

the international standardization process. The CEQ sees

the relationship between the purpose of the tools, and the

needs and goals of the government in relation to environmental issues. The CEQ has the opportunity to bring to light

the connections between performance goals and necessary

management tools, and illustrate the value of the standards to

help meet the goals” (Connaughton, 2002a p. 5).

Blodgett (2000) writes that alternatives to U.S. command

and control approaches to environmental protection has

heightened in recent years. One new approach to environmental protection that fosters sustainability are value-based

principles drawn from, inter alia, voluntary environmental

management systems (VEMS). These may be categorized

with “good management practices,” the precautionary principle (approach) and ecosystem management (Blodgett, 2000

p. 5). “The management process approach proposes to

affect decisions by promoting and reinforcing environmentally oriented values” and that good management practices

“are often seen as voluntary alternatives to regulatory mandates.” (Blodgett, 2000 p. 5).

Voluntary environmental management system (VEMS)

standards such as the ISO 14000 series may provide a mechanism for regulatory process and application transparency

in the United States where emerging marine affairs oriented

fisheries issues such as approval of transgenic fish for

aquaculture production (see Logar and Pollock, 2005) run

into drawbacks related to disclosure prohibitions contained

in the Trade Secrets Act(s) of 2004. In July of 1992, the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designed a voluntary, fee-for-service seafood inspection program that was

based on hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP)

concepts – thus voluntary programs are not new to the

fisheries industry (Billy, 1994; Brown and Sylvia, 1994).

Another voluntary public/private approach, this time related to Atlantic Salmon conservation, involved Champion

International Corporation, Georgia-Pacific and another firm

initiating the Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement Project

in “downeast” Maine (Heissenbuttel, 1996).

Begley (1996b p. 54) reports that outside the United

States “regulatory systems are less stringent, less prescriptive, and less adversarial making ISO 14000 a more meaningful tool for organizations to use to demonstrate commitment to good performance.” Begley (1996b p. 54) high-
Page 8

lights that the “abundant record keeping required by ISO

14001 provides regulators with a paper trail of an

organization’s efforts to prevent and correct problems.”

“ISO 14000 establishes internationally recognized standards

that will diminish barriers to trade and make it easier to do

business across borders” (Begley, 1996b p. 51). “Since the

ISO 14000 family of standards is recognized internationally,

benefits in competitive positioning arising from certification may be realized in foreign as well as domestic markets.”

Some studies corroborate these findings (see: Berthelot et

al., 2003 p. 50).

 APPLICATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL VEMS STANDARD:

 ISO 14001

According to the United States National Academy of

Science – National Research Council (NRC; 1999) the international VEMS standard, ISO 14000, does not establish

specific environmental performance requirements beyond

commitment to continual improvement as well as compliance with applicable legislation and regulations. Highlighted

aspects of changing the environmental protection paradigm

can be seen “from one focused solely on complying with

federal regulations to one for which compliance is achieved

as part of a more proactive performance-based system”

(NRC, 1999 p. 3). The NRC (1999 p. 4) highlighted that the

characteristics of VEMS’s and ISO 14001 “to be flexible,

baseline approach that can be adapted to organizations of

all sizes and types, and to a variety of cultures, processes

and businesses.” For the U.S., a panel of experts of the National Academy of Sciences/NRC could be convened to research and articulate marine fisheries-oriented VEMS (see: NRC,

1999; National Academy of Public Administration, 2001).

“The International Organization of Standardization (ISO)

has also dealt with environmental management but on a

broader and more global scale. To reiterate the International Organization for Standardization, commonly referred

to as ISO, is an international, non-governmental federation

of “standards bodies” from one hundred and twenty participating nations. The ISO addresses environmental management on a broader and more global scale through its

voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) standard, ISO 14001 and the ISO 14000 series in general. The

standards represent unprecedented market-place and scientifically-based consensus initiatives (von Zharen 1998 p.

83). The ISO 14000 series provides specific requirements

and principles for environmental management with the goal

of internalizing environmental standards into either public

and/or private sector actions locally, regionally or globally.

“The focus of ISO 14001 is on a management ecosystem”

(von Zharen 1998 p. 83). Present applications of a voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) strategy

may be found in a plethora of businesses, including segments of the maritime industry. “The ISO 14001 standard is

by design generic and thus could apply to all components

of maritime activities, including fisheries management and

management of marine ecosystems” (von Zharen, 1999 p.

18). The ISO 14001 requires a multifaceted, interdisciplinary look at all aspects of a business or organization’s activities, products, or services at all levels in all areas and an

analysis of how these interact potentially in an unsustainable detrimental manner with the physical environment. In

other words, ISO 14001 focuses on both parts and the whole.

“The impetus for the ISO 14000 series can be traced to

the global environmental initiative, the Earth Summit in 1992”

(von Zharen, 1999 p. 11). The June 1992 Earth Summit Conference in Rio De Janeiro had as one focus worldwide corporate environmental management (see e.g. Shrivastava,

1995 p. 937). A number of voluntary environmental management systems (VEMSs) were at that time in various

stages of development. Major ones included the British

Standard, BS 7750, and the European Eco-Management and

Audit Scheme, EMAS (Oluoch-Wauna, 2001). Individual

industries had developed their own specialized VEMS especially the chemical manufacturers. What was needed,

however, was a unified and all encompassing generic VEMS

that could embody all industry, organizations (including

government and non-governmental entities), and businesses, large, medium, and small that could also pertain to

the marine environment (see e.g. Bodal, 2003; Sinclair and

Valdimarsson, 2003). Out of this concern in part, emerged

the ISO 14000 international voluntary environmental management system series. The ISO 14000 series provides specific requirements and principles for environmental management. The standards are “systems” standards, neither

domestic nor intentional legal standards (von Zharen 1999

p. 12). They are intended to harmonize standards across

industry organizations primarily in a voluntary manner. The

public or private organization (entity) identifies what environmental impacts are acceptable within the prevailing legal regulatory framework, both international (treaties, memorandums of understanding (MOU)) and domestic (in the

U.S. “Public Law” and executive orders). The ISO 14000

series may apply to all types of organizations and is structured to accommodate diverse geographical, cultural, and

social conditions. Unlike traditional command and control

piecemeal regulatory approaches to environmental protection, the ISO 14000 series may simultaneously address all

affected media and resources, including living marine species (von Zharen 1999 p. 12).

Moreover, the standards may be grouped as either highlighting evaluation of an organization’s management system and activities or focusing on assessment of its products (for example, seafood processing) and/or services (wild

capture fishing, aquaculture, “deep-sea recreational, for-
Page 9

hire fishing trips,” etc). It is a “management” standard, not

a command and control legal standard. Other types of documents in the series include tools and guidelines (Figure 2).

The ISO 14000 series defines management processes to be

followed to minimize the impact an organization (entity) will

have on the environment. It is up to the organization to

identify what environmental impacts are acceptable within

the established regulatory legal framework to which it falls.

“Effective (voluntary) environmental management system’s

are based on a realistic view of how organization’s work.

This includes understanding that it is the people with their

handle on the controls who determine whether or not an

organization complies with legal requirements” (Giles, 2004

p. 35). The ISO 14001 may be used to augment and

proactively precede the traditional piece-meal regulatory

approach to stewarding ocean resources (von Zharen, 1998;

see also von Zharen, 1995). There are several core principles of an ISO 14001 VEMS (see Figure 14). As a part of

these core principles, there is included a framework for setting and reviewing environmental objectives and targets

that are communicated to all employees (crew) and that remains available in a transparent diaphanous way to stakeholders6,7, (however they identify themselves; see: for example, Mitchell et al., 1997).

An effective ISO 14001 voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) can be built on stewardship framework principles such as those of the science-based large

marine ecosystem (LME) approach (see e.g. Sherman and

Duda, 1999a&b; Duda and Sherman, 2005; Sherman, 2005;

Alexander, 1993; Morgan, 1994; Morgan, 1987). The ISO

14000 series incorporates management precepts that are

imperative in attaining an ecosystem oriented-approach to

sustainability of the marine environment: it provides commitment to environmental performance; a review of environmental impacts; the formulation of objectives and targets; and continual improvement to meeting the environmental policy vision (or mission statement), that is the

baseline for prospective (third party) certification (von

Zharen 1999 p. 13). The ISO 14000 specialization’s encompass a wide variety of aspects including environmental auditing, eco-labeling, self and third party certification, and

life-cycle analysis (see Figure 15).

Sproul (1998b p. 141) states the fishing industry is quite

suited to implement various aspects of an international voluntary environmental management system (VEMS); whether

at the vessel, firm or fishery-wide level. Indeed the Australian government has fostered pilot projects related to fisheries voluntary environmental management systems (see:

Australian Government, 2005 and 2004a&b). Typically, the

ISO 14000 approach focuses on an individual firm, organization, or entity developing an appropriate VEMS with prospective guidance from “registered” environmental management systems host country base auditors if the entity

chooses. The VEMS could be specific to a firm/industry/

fishery and follow appropriate established generic ISO guidelines (see: Figure 2; Table 2) that would provide the baseline

for its environmental policy development and implementation. Prior to ISO certification (which is not obligatory)

however, the system and its implementation procedures

could undergo an environmental audit by an independent

third party for transparent certification. Periodic internal

performance evaluations could occur as a part of environmental audits which could be communicated to interested

stakeholders including regulators (see Figures 2, 16). Independence between monitoring and enforcement reviews

ensures on-going regulatory and prospective certification

compliance while encouraging adaptive management (see

Figure 17) improvement practices (see e.g., NRC, 2004a&b)

regarding the VEMS and the firm’s actual fishery impact on

the ecosystem (Sproul, 1998b p. 143).

Certification of a country’s products at the macro level

or of an organization’s produce at the micro level (see Stehr

Group 2005) via locally provided human resource teams of

independent VEMS-auditors could be articulated in a consistent way to both domestic and international clientele by

way of an international “eco-label” protocol that is provided by adherence to ISO 14020 (see also: Gudmundsson

and Wessels, 2000; LeBlanc, 2003; Wessels, 2002). (This is

analogous to the dolphin-safe tuna moniker in the U.S. consumer market that is regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, see also: NOAA, 2000 and 2002; NMFS-Office of Protected Resources, 2005a, b, c, d). Thus, crossboundary standardization of the eco-label procedure is imperative to not only optimize defensible VEMS documentation, but to avoid non-tariff trade barriers that could materialize in the discord associated with a myriad of potential

certification schemes (Sproul, 1998b p. 143; see also Teisl et

al., 2002; Joseph, 1994). The ISO “eco-label” protocol simply confirms that the product is what it says it is by analogy, “dolphin safe” (see Sutton 1998 p. 132). Also certified

is the documentation practice describing the process by

which the product came about. If the process were specifically applied to fisheries, and FAO Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries criteria8

 were employed, the auditor

process could certify and label fisheries as sustainable and

an institutionally ecological practice (Sproul, 1998b p. 143).

Sustainable fishery certification will likely incorporate

into every day consumer choice (Allison, 2001). The process of learning how to minimize marine environmental ecosystem impacts while financing socially constructive organization is of paramount importance. Through market forces

rather than subsidization, a fundamental shift in thinking

may take place. The economy will begin to incorporate

ways for people to respond in the market place to the realization that constructive and sustainable processes are at

least as important as their end-product. Linking the fishery

product with its process (e.g. gear effects minimization on

habitat, minimal incidental/regulatory bycatch and discards

as well as highgrading, and an end to unresponsible overfishing) is key, the ISO 14000 series VEMS accomplishes

this task (Gable, 2003; Sproul, 1998b).

The time is upon the fishing industry as a whole and its

milieu of consumer oriented-stakeholders, resource managers, academics, and policy makers, to formulate a legacy for
Page 10

marine ecosystem sustainable development. Within their

grasp is the opportunity to initiate and institutionalize freemarket, democratic instruments of choice, such as the ISO

14001 VEMS provides (Sproul, 1998b p. 145) and as part of

a large marine ecosystem (LME) socio-economic portfolio

approach (Edwards et al., 2005; Edwards, 2005). Current

and future generations could utilize and build upon it to

foster large marine ecosystem (LME) resource responsibility and guardianship. With determination, an ISO 14001

VEMS program could also integrate mechanisms furthering

international and domestic human development and healthy

sustainable ecosystems.

The ISO 14000 family of international standards on environmental management supports the internationally

agreed to objective of “sustainable development” (e.g.

Kates et al., 2005) with a wide-ranging portfolio of standardized methods that provides organizations with best

available scientifically valid data (see NRC, 2004a) on the

environmental effects of economic activity. This is a precursor to the technical basis for environmental (fishery)

regulations. The ISO 14000 series, first printed in September 1996, meets the needs and concerns of those interested

in the environmental management of all types of organizations. Specifically the ISO 14000 family of standards comprises a systematic approach of documents related to voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS; i.e., ISO

14001 and ISO 14004) and procedures and documents related to environmental management tools, such as environmental management system audits and environmental performance evaluations.

The goal of VEMS adoption is to help all types of organizations (entities) ensure that their operations comply with

environmental laws and that major environmental risks, liabilities, and impacts are properly identified, minimized, and

managed (Darnall, et al., 2000 p. 1). They are also meant to

be transparent to stakeholders and the interested public.

Since the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD; ending in September 2002) incorporated

the concept of ecosystem-based management system for a

sustainable future the ecosystem effects of fishing needs

better scientific scrutiny (Barange, 2003). Dernbach and

Feldman (2003 p. 88) state that with regard to the

Johannesburg Summit in September 2002, “the concept of

sustainable development changed by incorporating environmental protection, and even restoration into the definition of development.” (see also Kates, et al., 2005).

Barange (2003 p. 194) claims that the scientific community needs “to quantify anthropogenically driven changes

and their consequences in terms of ecosystem functioning,

turnover rates, matter fluxes and so on, and to determine

whether they are reversible, and if so over what time scales.”

We need to establish data bases of estimated species abundance and resource management approaches ... such an

inventory does not yet exist (Barange, 2003 p. 195). It is

suggested here that an industry based “voluntary” ISO

14000 series environmental management system could provide a part of that needed data base (see also Zeller et al.,

2005). Darnall et. al., (2000 pp. 1 & 2) writes that a VEMS

supplies the structural framework to minimize an organizations environmental footprint (see Figure 4). Once an organization implements its VEMS, theoretically, it will not only

be in conformance with all (governmental) environmental

regulations, but it may also surpass the regulatory standards for many environmentally regulated activities. In addition, the collected fishery biomass data could be studied

in aggregate by the scientific community to ascertain ecosystem functioning. Further, the entity may identify opportunities for reducing non-regulated environmental impacts

of its activities too. Organizations that adopt VEMS’s and

are able to reduce their environmental impacts beyond regulatory standards may also lessen their required environmental reporting burdens and their associated costs (Darnall

et al., 2000 p. 2).

In the marine fisheries realm, concerning the ecosystem effects of fishing, between 18 and 39.5 million metric

tons of mostly dead fish are discarded annually by commercial fisheries which may severely handicap the energy flow

in large marine ecosystems (Barange, 2003 p. 194; see Figure 18). “From an ecological perspective, the ecosystem

approach recognizes, and aims to remedy the unwanted

impacts of fishing on non-target species, habitats and ecological interactions” (Jennings, 2004 p. 280). Shrivastava

(1995 p. 937) suggests “because much economic activity

occurs within corporations (firms), government efforts need

to be supplemented with new voluntary efforts [emphasis

added] by corporations (firms) in order to address the industrial induced ecological problems.” “Corporations

(firms) are the intermediaries that convert natural resources

into usable products (commodities; see Figure 7). Natural

resource-based industries (fisheries) can play a very constructive role in preserving ecosystems through conservation and resource-renewal strategies.” (Shrivastava, 1995

p. 940). This is analogous to humans as an integral part of

the ecosystem – not separate from it (Sherman, 2005).

The ISO 14001 context as described by Darnall (2001, p.

2) identifies ISO 14001-certified VEMSs as standards for

environmental management. While many organizations or

companies for years have utilized VEMSs, ISO 14001 is the

first successful attempt to create an international VEMS

standard that is certified by an external auditor. And, it can

be utilized for either or both domestic or international purposes – important aspects for large marine ecosystem (LME)

fisheries management.

Pojasek (2002 p. 83) affirms that the “ISO 14000 environmental management standard is currently the most widely

used VEMS around the world.” Stapleton, et al. (2001 p. 1),

also makes the claim that the “ISO 14001 published in November 1996, is the most widely accepted international standard for VEMS.” Thornton (2000 p. 89) articulates the story

that by “late 1999, it was announced that suppliers to the

automobile industry (in the U.S.) would be required to certify the implementation of (voluntary) environmental management systems (VEMS’s) in their operations by the end

of 2002. The VEMS’s must be in conformance with ISO
Page 11

14001.” Thus, a VEMS standard is born. “Automakers can

have a very significant and direct effect on their suppliers’

behavior with regard to quality, safety, and environmental

performance.” (Thornton, 2000 p. 92).

Thornton (2000 p. 93) goes on to theorize that ... ISO

14001 certification “assures all parties that the company is

working diligently to improve environmental performance,

and is willing to go on record with their objective and results.” As a part of the precautionary approach (e.g. Dorman,

2005) “ISO 14001 certification can be particularly important

in developing countries, where many sensitive environmental issues may arise” (Thornton, 2000 p. 93). Thornton (2000

p. 93) assures that it is the “customer’s reaction that will

determine the success of ISO 14001 certification” (the Registrar Accreditation Board accredits ISO 14001 registrars in

the United States).

Despite its apparent focus on traditional business operations, ISO 14001 also has gained the attention of public

policy makers because of its potential and apparent relevance to environmental protection and sustainability

(Darnall, 2001 p. 3). Beginning in the late 1990s, state and

federal environmental regulators have investigated the use

of VEMSs and their role in public policy (see for example,

Swift, 2002; State of Connecticut, 1999). One outgrowth of

this interest was the formation of the Multistate Working

Group on Environmental Management Systems (MSWG)

while in concert with the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) initiated ten state-level pilot programs to

encourage and facilitate VEMS adoption in approximately

60 U.S. based facilities (Darnall, 2001, p. 3). The MSWG and

EPA initiated the pilot program to determine the potential

VEMSs have for future regulation in any industry. According to Darnall (2001 p. 3) approximately three-quarters of

the pilot project facilities were also seeking ISO 14001 (third

party) certification (see also NRC, 1999).

Because of the pilot programs, regulators interest in

VEMSs has gained momentum and beginning in 2000, U.S.

EPA created “Performance Track” to recognize organizations that consistently meet their obligatory regulatory legal requirements and implement high-quality voluntary environmental management systems based on the ISO 14001

framework (Darnall, 2001 p. 3). Regulators interest in VEMSs

is rooted in the belief that organizations which adopt VEMSs

may meet or exceed their regulatory commitments (e.g. Hart,

1995), thus making the environmental regulatory system

less burdensome and restrictive to their operations. Darnall

(2001 p. 3) postulates that while scientific evidence on this

issue is not yet tenable, if VEMSs demonstrate increases in

environmental performance then important governmentalorientated questions arise about whether U.S. executive

branch agencies should use ISO 14001 as a tool for them to

achieve goals of greater environmental protection. (see, for

example Hart, 1995 p. 1000).

The ISO 14001 VEMS family places its focus on the

“organization,” not the “facility” (Ritzert, 2000 p. 70). “It is

not a site management system defined by physical boundaries, but rather a management system for the activities,

products, and services of the organization – including

people, resources, physical plant or platform, materials, and

all the other things that make up the firm, enterprise, or

institution” (Ritzert, 2000 p. 70; see Figure 19; Table 3).

The ISO 14000 environmental standards specify the

structure of information technology, in the form of a VEMS,

that an organization must have in place if it seeks to obtain

certification of the VEMS according to ISO guidelines. The

ISO 14000 standards describe the basic elements of an effective VEMS (Montabon et al., 2000, p. 5; see Figures 14,

15). For the proactive organization the assumption is that

better environmental management will indirectly lead to

better environmental performance (Montabon et al., 2000,

p. 5).

Montabon et al., (2000 p. 6) divided the “intent” of the

ISO 14000 into two general categories. For organizational

evaluation, the VEMS, auditing, and performance evaluation standards will be used. The VEMS standards provide

the framework for the management system. Third-party

auditing and performance evaluations are seen as management tools in the successful implementation of a VEMS.

For product/services and process evaluation, labeling, life

cycle assessment, and environmental attributes in, for example, seafood/fishery aquacultural product standards

would be emphasized.

Thus, in review, according to information available from

the U.S. EPA (see: http://www.epa.gov/cgi_bin/

epaprintonly.cgi ; online available March 19, 2005) an environmental management system is a framework that helps an

organization achieve its environmental goals through consistent re-analysis of its operations (so-called “double loop

analysis”). The assumption is that this increased analysis

will over time improve the environmental performance of

the organization and strive for a healthy sustainable ecosystem. The voluntary environmental management system

itself does not require a level of environmental performance

that must be achieved; each organization’s VEMS is tailored to the organization’s industry services, regulations

and goals. A VEMS encourages an organization to continuously improve its environmental performance in a synoptic

manner, by following a repeating cycle (see Figures 2, 3, 4,

and especially 6).

According to Oluoch-Wauna (2001, p. 247) “a successful implementation of an environmental management system and audit also allows an organization to minimize its

environmental liabilities and risks.” Further, proof of good

environmental management could lead to easy attainment

of environmental incident insurance coverage at low premiums due to reduced risks. Presently, the utilization of a

VEMS and certification or audit as an instrument of environmental protection is in an adaptive management experimental phase. There is as yet no systematic approach to its

use, or criteria for analyzing its effectiveness (OluochWauna, 2001, p. 248). “In due course, environmental auditing will become the norm, part of best environmental practice of firms” (Goodall, 1995, p. 34). To facilitate global

acceptance and implementation of sustainable fisheries (and
Page 12

aquaculture) LME-oriented principles can be framed within

a broad arena of voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) standards that are akin to indicators contained

in the socio-economic module.

Therefore, establishment and implementation of an

organization’s VEMS is central in ascertaining its environmental policy, objectives, and targets, providing a benchmark frame of reference for continuous adjustment and improvement of marine-related environmental performance

(Gable, 2003). Tools for environmental management exist to

assist the organization in fostering and promoting its environmental policy, objectives, and targets; see Table 2. The

ISO 14000 compliance standards are practical tools for the

manager (boat captain, fishery permit holder, regulator, etc.)

who isn’t satisfied with compliance to legislation and command and control directives, they’re for the proactive entity providing a strategic approach to conducting, implementing, and evaluating environment-related measures that

can bring a sustainable return on investment (Gable, 2003,

p. 439). More information on ISO 14000 VEMS usage in the

private sector can be found in Coglianese and Nash (2002,

2001). Thus, adoption of ISO 14000 compliance standards

could be contained and subsumed into a sustainable “precautionary approach” paradigm. One example is the market-oriented voluntary bycatch reduction program that has

effectively reduced bycatch rates in Northeast Pacific trawl

fisheries; it is known as the Sea State Program (see:

www.groundfishforum.org; see Appendix 1).

ISO RELEASES ISO 14001 AND ISO 14004 REVISION 2004

The ISO 14001:2004 & ISO14004:2004 revisions were

released for publication on November 15, 2004 providing an

improvement from the original September 1996 version, with

more ease of understanding, clearer requirement intent, an

emphasis on overall regulatory compliance, and generalized compatibility with its older updated sibling ISO

9000:2000.

The ISO 14001:2004 revision changes includes clarification of terminology, better alignment with ISO 9000:2000,

and more emphasis on certain requirements together with

the folding in of additional conditions (e.g. Dodds, 2003).

Realignment with ISO 9000:2000 allows entities that are interested in combining a voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) and quality management system

(QMS), an ease of transition to the revision. This perhaps is

now better suited for a seafood processor organization as

well as for offshore aquaculture development (Logar and

Pollack, 2005; Dalton, 2005; Naughten, 2005; Schmid, 2005;

Hoagland et al., 2003). The combining of the management

systems can be a natural progression for establishments

with joint organization resources.

The ISO 14001:2004 revision includes clarifications that

range from simple terminology adjustments, to a complete

rewrite of paragraphs, as well as the addition of new requirements. The clarifications and terminology changes

theoretically will enhance the understanding of the requirements for the organization. Overall, the updates will likely

add clarity to the voluntary environmental management

system requirements in the first “new and improved” version since its inception in September 1996 (see Table 4).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The precautionary-oriented ISO 14001 VEMS standard

can be the catalyst for fusing disparate goals into a global

vision of marine environmental sustainability – which is the

focus of a large marine ecosystem (LME) approach to living

marine resources (see e.g. Sherman and Duda, 1999a&b;

Duda and Sherman, 2002). Ammenberg and Hjelm (2002 p.

188) in their study uncovered that many small or micro enterprises are in need of systematic environmental efforts as

some entities did not take into consideration environmental

issues at all. This is likely the situation for many marine

fisheries related efforts as well. Dietz et al., (2003 p. 1909)

suggests that in the struggle to govern the commons requirements for complex systems (e.g. Green et al., 2005)

adaptive governance may encompass voluntary approaches. These measures and “those based on information disclosure have only begun to receive careful scientific attention as supplements to other tools.” They suggest that to gain success it “appears to depend on the existence of incentives that benefit leaders in volunteering over

laggards and on the simultaneous use of other strategies,

particularly ones that create incentives for compliance.”

This maybe the situation notwithstanding sanctioning difficulties posing problems under international agreements

(Dietz et. al., 2003 p. 1909). They have also found that

relying on “one-level centralized command and control strategies” to effectuate efficiencies for governing world resources have also failed (Dietz et. al., 2003 p. 1910; e.g.

Table 5). Kollman and Prakash (2002 p. 60) highlight that

local or “domestic factors such as organizational arrangements, regulatory styles, and market structures significantly

influence firms’ incentives structures“ to taking up “beyond compliance” VEMS codes such as ISO 14001. “Although showing some promise, rights-based management

has yet to demonstrate its ability to cope with ecosystembased management” (Sinclair et al., 2002 p. 262; see also

Figure 20). Individual fishery quota’s or dedicated access

privileges “may reduce overcapitalization and inefficiency

in U.S. fisheries, they do not lead to ecosystem protection
Page 13

and sustainable fisheries” (Rieser, 1997 p. 817). “Ecosystem management is further hindered by the fact that a (U.S.)

regional fishery management council cannot manage fish

populations throughout their range because authority over

the entire marine ecosystem is fragmented between different entities” (Hanna, 1997 p. 228; see also Figure 21).

Hence, adoption of consensus based voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) can help facilitate

an incremental movement toward ecosystem-oriented fisheries science policy. Steger (2000 p. 32) suggests that an

“ecological limits-driven” VEMS can contribute to sustainable harvests in the long term for specific ecosystems.

Valdimarsson and Metzner (2005 p. 288) advise that a fisheries oriented firm-based response to perceived consumer

market pressures ought to include compliance and environmental standards such as ISO 14001. The ISO 14000 series

aims at the establishment of ecological considerations in

the decision-making process on the granting of permits (or

“dedicated access privileges”). Fisheries oriented firms must

increasingly secure a permit (license) to operate directly

from civil society, in conjunction with regulators, by illustrating their commitment to sound environmental policy and

performance (e.g. Neumayer and Perkins, 2004 p. 830). The

ISO 14000 series framework can demonstrate such a commitment. Neumayer and Perkins (2004 p. 836) imply that ISO

14001 could be a complement to public law and regulation.

Imperial and Yandle (2005 p. 499) caution “setting a TAC

can be problematic when decision makers are confronted

with scientific uncertainty. The process can also be distorted if fishers increase catch in an effort to ‘fish for quota’

in the years leading up to the introduction of an ITQ system” (re: dedicated access privileges).

This review has attempted to address the hypothesis

by Hanna (2002 p. 4) that the “existence of property rights

(in fisheries) would allow the focus to shift toward performance-based regulation, where the right to fish depends on

certification of meeting specified conditions.” Taken literally, this paper, through a normative review and synthesis

of the best available science literature, finds that “certification” to ISO 14001 VEMS conditions is able to foster performance towards sustainable ecosystem-approaches to fisheries. The ISO 14000 voluntary approach provides entities

the flexibility to develop VEMS that are appropriate to their

business characteristics, levels of risk, location and operations (Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000 p. 501). “While ISO 14001

does not eliminate the need for government regulation of

industry, it should help industries improve their ability to

meet the expectations of regulators” (Raines, 2002 p. 425),

this may be especially true for emerging “sector organizations” in commercial fisheries operations (see e.g. GAO,

2004). Further, it is also possible that insurance companies,

and perhaps the banking industry, maybe more willing to

accept certification to ISO 14001 VEMS as evidence of reduced environmental risk-taking by entities (e.g. Raines,

2002 p. 421) and thus offer special rates (Kollman and

Prakash, 2002 p. 48). With regards to environmental management system implementation, Fryxell et al., (2004 p. 243)

hypothesize that the “effectiveness of major environmental

management system components will be influenced by motivations for certification.” Their hypothesis was generally

supported – “the strongest motivations were to ensure regulatory compliance, enhance the organization’s reputation

and improve environmental performance, respectively”

(Fryxell, et. al., 2004 p. 247). Lastly, Delmas (2002 p. 99)

proffers that the “government can also promote the adoption of ISO 14001 VEMS by threatening to issue a mandatory environmental management standard (that may be more

stringent than ISO 14001) if firms are not voluntarily adopting ISO 14001 in its present form.”

As stated in the introduction, Gober9

 (2000 p. 8) points

out “modern synthesis is organized around ideas, concepts

and theories. It emphasizes discovering strategic connections...,” it may involve linking already discovered ideas in

innovative ways, in grappling with large and complicated

human and natural systems, and in looking for analogies in

seemingly unconnected fields.” Thus, it is proposed here

that the application of voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) can serve as an integrated useful

tool that can strengthen and improve large marine ecosystem environmental quality and sustainability.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this study provided through a U.S. National Academy of Sciences National Research Council

Research Associateship Award (No. 0497420-marine science and fisheries) performed at the NOAA/NMFS

Narragansett, Rhode Island Lab under the program on

“marine ecosystem assessment and management.” Thanks

to Kenneth Sherman, Director, NMFS Narragansett Lab

and Chief, NMFS Office of Marine Ecosystems Studies

for comments and discussions on earlier versions of the

manuscript, as well as Steven F. Edwards of the NMFS

Narragansett Lab, Phil Logan, Chief, Social Sciences Branch

(NMFS, Woods Hole, MA), Professor Tim Hennessey of

the University of Rhode Island, Kingston and other anonymous reviewers. I also thank Professor W.M. von Zharen

of Texas A&M in Galveston for discussions on VEMS ISO

14000 last winter. The Social Sciences Branch of the NMFSNEFSC covered publication costs for binding and distribution for the NEFSC “technical memorandum” series.
Page 14

ENDNOTES

1. Moreover, in a memorandum letter dated November

19, 2003, concerning the “establishment of environmental management systems,” the then Assistant

Attorney General for Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice recommended that each Federal

Bureau establish a voluntary environmental management system that reflects ISO 14001 or similar standards. He also wrote that agencies ought to consider

“procedures and processes necessary to enable organizations to perform their functions consistent with

regulatory requirements, environmental policies, and

agency mission.”

2. The Commanding Lieutenant General of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, in a memorandum dated May 19,

2003 (Commander’s Policy Memorandum #11), stated

that the “environmental management system represents a framework through which an organization identifies attainable indicators of environmental performance, continuously seeks to improve its environmental performance in measurable ways, and documents these improvements.” Further he went on to

write, referring to Executive Order 13148, “while these

voluntary environmental management system requirements are oriented to federal facilities, they do not

preclude the eventual development of programmatic

environmental management systems.” Further, the

Department of Army has directed, the Corps of Engineers environment management systems will be based

on the International Organization of Standardization

framework ISO 14001. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary in a memorandum dated July 29, 2004

(memo #5600-001), regarding USDA Environmental

Management System Policy, enacted a doctrine that

“environmental management will be an integral part

of day-to-day decision-making and long-term planning across all USDA mission areas and in all USDA

missions, activities, and functions.” The then Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, by and large echoed these same intentions in a memo dated April 22,

2003.

3. Wixted (2003) provided an implementation guide

for U.S. Department of Commerce environmental

management systems. The 18 steps in the guide

drew upon ISO 14000 standards in describing

VEMS elements, stating it is a widely-accepted international standard for a continual-improvementoriented VEMS.

4. Wixted (2003) reconfirmed the intent of Secretary of

Commerce Evans’ memorandum issued on April 22,

2003, that the “success of our mission requires a commitment to continual improvement in our environmental management performance. The environmental

management system is the tool to assist us in meeting

this commitment.” The VEMS serves as a tool for

improving overall agency and environmental mission

performance (Wixted, 2003 p. 3). The ISO 14001 VEMS

approach is specifically referred to by the guide.

5. As a bureau in the Department of Commerce, NOAA’s

mission, inter alia, is to conserve and wisely manage

America’s coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable economic opportunities including the goal

of ecosystem-based management. The National Marine Fisheries Service of NOAA works in partnership

with ... (8) regional fishery management councils crafting measures to prevent overfishing, rebuild stocks,

and reduce bycatch among other objectives (Department of Commerce Ocean and Coastal Activities Report of the Office of Management Budget (http://

ocean.ceq.gov/activities/welcome.html), online available December 18, 2004.)

6. Co-management is featured as the basis on which to

build sustainability strategies in which all stakeholders participate. Co-management, synonymous with

cooperative management, joint management, and collaborative management, is defined as a system that

enables a sharing of decision-making power, responsibility, and risk between governments and stakeholders including, but not limited to, resource users, environmental interests, experts, and wealth generators.

It is a form of power sharing, that fisheries stewardship programs can integrate (von Zharen, 1998 pp. 85

& 86).

7. In order to establish its legitimacy, a co-management

regime must be created from a mandate, such as a

memorandum of understanding (MOU) among participating parties. Other core elements are essential

to the success of a co-management VEMS. The first

is a strong supporting institution — the council,

board, or agency charged with implementation. Another element is effective engagement of stakeholders in order to “probe the intricacies of key issues, to

define the values and principles for action, to explore

new concepts, to forge alliances, and to create a legitimacy for the implementation and delivery phases”

(von Zharen, 1998 p. 88).

8. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries has

specific articles for implementation of sustainable development provisions contained in the Code in, for

example, both fishing operations (Art. 8) and fisheries management (Art. 7). According to Garcia (2000 p.

536) “this structure is convenient because it is explicitly addressed to the various types of actors required

to implement the Code: the policy and
Page 15

decision-makers; managers; fishermen; fish processor and traders; fish farmers;” as well as scientists

(fisheries research is found in Article 12). “While the

FAO Code is a voluntary and non-binding instrument,

the United States has consistently supported its usefulness as an internationally agreed upon statement

of principles that should govern the policies of FAO

members in all sectors of the fishing industry” (see:

Federal Register 67 (164), August 23, 2002 at page

54645; and Federal Register 65 (210), October 30, 2000

at page 64683).

9. Patricia Gober is a former invited NOAA Science Advisory Board member when James Baker was

Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmospheres in the

Department of Commerce. She mentions in her article

that NOAA “recently recast its mission to encompass environmental stewardship. Its goals of building sustainable fisheries, recovering protected species, maintaining healthy coastlines and delivering

better forecasts are ripe for social science input”

(Gober 2000 p. 5, referencing the “NOAA Strategic

Plan: A Vision for 2005”, published in 1996).

REFERENCES CITED

Alexander, L.M., 1993. Large Marine Ecosystems: A New

Focus for Marine Resource Management. Marine

Policy, 17 (3), pp. 186-198.

Allison, E. H., 2001. Big Laws, Small Catches: Global Ocean

Governance and the Fisheries Crisis. Journal of International Development, 12 (7), pp. 933-950.

Alverson, D.L., 2004. Searching for Ecosystem Reality –

Terms and Concepts. Bulletin of Marine Science, 74(3)

pp. 639-652.

Ammenberg, J., and O. Hjelm, 2002. The Connection between Environmental Management Systems and Continual Environmental Performance Improvements. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9 (2), pp. 183-192.

Australian Government. 2005. Environmental Management

Systems (EMS). Department of the Environment and

Heritage, Online Available May 2, 2005 at http://

www.deh.gov.au. 4 pp.

Australian Government. 2004a. New EMS Directions: Fact

Sheet. Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Online Available April 16, 2005 at http://

www.affa.gov.au. 1 p.

Australian Government. 2004b. Fisheries and the Environment: International Issues. Department of Agriculture

Fisheries and Forestry, Online Available December 27,

2004 at http://www.affa.gov.au . 3 pp.

Bache, S.J., 2003. Bycatch Mitigation Tools: Selecting Fisheries, Setting Limits, and Modifying Gear. Ocean &

Coastal Management, 46 (1-2), pp. 103-125.

Barange, M., 2003. Ecosystem Science and the Sustainable

Management of Marine Resources: from Rio to

Johannesburg. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4 (1), pp. 190-196.

Begley, R., 1996a. ISO 14000: A Step Toward Industry SelfRegulation. Environmental Science & Technology, 30

(7), pp. 298A – 302A.

Begley, R., 1996b. Is ISO 14000 Worth It? The Journal of

Business Strategy, 17 (5), pp. 50 – 55.

Belsky, M.H., 1990. Interrelationships of Law in the Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Large Marine Ecosystems: Patterns, Processes, and Yields. K.

Sherman, L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.). American Association for the Advancement of Science,

Washington, D.C., pp. 224-233.

Belsky, M.H., 1985. Management of Large Marine Ecosystems: Developing a New Rule of Customary International Law. San Diego Law Review, 22 (4), pp. 733-763.

Benezech, D, G. Lambert, B. Lanoux, C. Lerch and J. LoosBaroin, 2001. Completion of Knowledge Codification: An

Illustration through the ISO 9000 Standards Implementation Process. Research Policy, 30 (9), pp. 1395-1407.

Berthelot, S., E. McGraw, M. Coulmont, and J. Morrill., 2003.

ISO 14000: Added Value for Canadian Business? Environmental Quality Management; 13 (2), pp. 47-57.

Billy, T.J., 1994. Report from the Office of Seafood: An Issues Update. In: Quality Control & Quality Assurance for Seafood, Sylvia, G, Shriver, A. L. and Morrissey,

M.T. (eds.), Oregon Sea Grant Publication ORESU-W93-001, pp. 1-5.

Blackburn, W.R., 2004. Sustainability as a Business Operating System. Natural Resources & Environment, 19 (2),

pp. 27-32.

Blodgett, J.E. 2000. Environmental Protection: New Approaches. Congressional Research Service Report for

Congress, No. RL 30760, Online Available, May 7, 2005

at http://www.ncseonline.org.

Bodal, B. O, 2003. Incorporating Ecosystem Considerations

into Fisheries Management: Large-scale Industry Perspective. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson eds., FAO and

CABI Publishing pp. 41-46.

Boling, E.A., 2005. Environmental Management Systems and

NEPA: A Framework for Productive Harmony. Environmental Law Institute News & Analysis, 35 (1), pp. 10022-

10031.

Brown, J.R. and N.D. MacLeod, 1996. Integrating Ecology

into Natural Resource Management Policy. Environmental Management, 20 (3), pp. 289-296.

Brown, L., and G. Sylvia, 1994. Trends in Seafood Quality

Assurance. In: Quality Control & Quality Assurance

for Seafood, Sylvia, G, Shriver, A. L. and Morrissey,

M.T. (eds.), Oregon Sea Grant Publication ORESU-W93-001, pp. 9-14.
Page 16

Buck, E. H. 2004. Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishery Funding.

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress,

No. RS21799, Online Available, May 2, 2005 at http://

www.ncseonline.org. 6 pp.

Burroughs, R.H., 1996. A Policy Orientation Toward Estuarine Shores. In: Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments, and Human Alterations. K.F. Nordstrom, and

C.T. Roman (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, pp. 435-448.

Cho, J.H., J.M. Gates, P. Logan, A. Kitts, and M. Soboil,

2005. The Economic Values of Atlantic Herring in the

Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension,

Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 215-

228.

Christmann, P., 2000. Effects of “Best Practices” of Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The Role of

Complementary Assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), pp. 663-680.

Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2002. Policy Options for Improving Environmental Management in the Private Sector. Environment, 44 (9), pp. 10-23.

Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2001. Bolstering Private-Sector

Environmental Management. Issues in Science and

Technology, 17 (3), pp. 69-74.

Connecticut, (State of), 1999. State of Connecticut Public

Act No. 99-226: An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management Systems. Approved June 29,

1999.

Connaughton, J.L, 2004. Attaining Productive Harmony in

Environmental Policy in the 21st Century. Presentation

at Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., January, 11pp.

Connaughton, J.L., 2002a. The United States Federal Government and Its Uptake of the ISO 14000 Series of Environmental Management Standards. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, Letter of February 13th,

Online Available, May 21, 2005 at www.ofee.gov/ems/

ems.htm. 5 pp.

Connaughton, J.L., 2002b. Testimony to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, September, 4pp.

Connaughton, J.L., 2001. Statement before the United States

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,

Washington, D.C., May 17, 2 pp.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2004. U.S. Ocean

Action Plan. The Bush Administration’s Response to

the U.S. Commission on Policy. December 17th, 2004, 39

pp.

Daily, G. and 15 Others, 2000. The Value of Nature and the

Nature of Value. Science, 289 (5478), pp. 395-396.

Dalton, R., 2005. Bill on Deep-Sea Fish Farms Brings Wave

of Disapproval. Nature, 435 (7045), p.1014.

Darcy, G. H. and G. C. Matlock, 1999. Application of the

Precautionary Approach in the National Standard

Guidelines for Conservation and Management of Fisheries in the United States. ICES Journal of Marine

Science, 56 (6), pp. 853-859.

Darnall, N., 2001. Adopting ISO 140001: Why Some Firms

Mandate Certification while Others Encourage It. Paper for Presentation at the Twenty-Third Annual Research Conference for the Association for Public Policy

Analysis and Management Fall Conference: “Public

Policy Analysis and Public Policy: Making the Connection,” November 1-3, Washington Monarch Hotel,

Washington, DC. 22 pp.

Darnall, N., D. R. Gallagher, R. N. L. Andrews and D. Amaral,

2000. Environmental Management Systems: Opportunities for Improved Environmental and Business Strategy? Environmental Quality Management, 9 (3), pp.

1-9.

Delmas, M.A., 2002. The Diffusion of Environmental Management Standards in Europe and in the United States:

An Institutional Perspective. Policy Sciences, 35 (1),

pp. 91-119.

Dernbach, J., and I. Feldman, 2003. After Johannesburg:

Sustainable Development Begins at Home. Environmental Quality Management, 12 (3), pp. 87-90.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern, 2003. The Struggle to

Govern the Commons. Science, 302 (5652), pp. 1907-

1912.

Di Leva, C.E., 2004. Sustainable Development and The World

Bank’s Millennium Development Goals. Natural Resources & Environment, 19 (2), pp. 13-19.

Dobson, T., S. J. Riley and M. Gaden, 2005. Human Dimensions of Great Lakes Fishery Management: New

Research Thrust of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Society and Natural Resources, 18 (5), pp. 487-

491.

Dodds, O. A. 2003. Revising ISO 14001 and ISO 14004. ISO

Bulletin, June, pp. 20-22.

Dorman, P., 2005. Evolving Knowledge and the Precautionary Principle. Ecological Economics, 53 (2), pp. 169-

176.

Duda, A.M., 2005. Targeting Development Assistance to

meet WSSD Goals for Large Marine Ecosystems and

Small Island Developing States. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 48 (1), pp. 1-14.

Duda, A. and K. Sherman, 2005. Applications of Large Marine Ecosystem Approach Toward World Summit Targets. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The

Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.),

Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier,

Amsterdam, pp. 297-317.

Duda, A. M. and K. Sherman, 2002. A New Imperative for

Improving Management of Large Marine Ecosystems.

Ocean & Coastal Management, 45 (11-12), pp. 797-

833.

Eccleston, C. H., 2003. Integrating NEPA’s Concept of Adaptive Management with an ISO 14000-Consistent EMS.

Environmental Quality Management, 12 (3), pp. 59-67.

Eccleston, C.H., and Smythe, R. B., 2002. Integrating Environmental Impact Assessment with Environmental

Management Systems. Environmental Quality Management, 11 (4), pp. 1-13.
Page 17

Edwards, S.F., 2005. Ownership of Multi-Attribute Fishery

Resources in Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension,

Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 137-

154.

Edwards, S.F., J.S. Link and B.P. Rountree, 2005. Portfolio

Management of Fish Communities in Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The

Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.),

Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier,

Amsterdam, pp. 181-199.

Edwards, S.F., J.S. Link, and B.P. Rountree, 2004. Portfolio

Management of Wild Fish Stocks, Ecological Economics, 49 (3), pp. 317-329.

Environmental Management System Library (EMSL), 2005.

Road to Successful EMS Implementation, Online Available June 13, 2005 at http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/

ems/index.html. 3 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005. Design

for the Environment: What is an EMS? Online Available, March 19th, at http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/

epaprintonly.cgi. 2 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1998a. EPA

Position Statement on Environmental Management

Systems and ISO 14001 and a Request for Comments

on the Nature of the Data to be Collected From Environmental Management Systems/ISO 14000 Pilots. Federal Register, 63 (48), pp. 12094-12097.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1998b. ISO

14000: International Environmental Management Standards (Fact Sheet), EPA/625/F-97/004, April, 6 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1996. Code

of Environmental Management Principles; Notice. Federal Register 61 (201), pp. 54061- 54066.

Frid, C. O. Paramor and C. Scott, 2005. Ecosystem-based

Fisheries Management: Progress in the NE Atlantic.

Marine Policy, 29 (5), pp. 431-469.

Fryxell, G. E., C.W-H. Lo and S. S. Chung. 2004. Influence of

Motivations for Seeking ISO 14001 Certification on

Perceptions of EMS Effectiveness in China. Environmental Management, 33 (2), pp. 239-251.

GAO, United States General Accounting Office, 2004. Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation.

Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-04-277, 46

pp.

Gable, F. J. 2005. Emergence of a Science Policy-Based Approach to Ecosystem-Oriented Management of Large

Marine Ecosystems. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J.

Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol.

13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 273-295.

Gable, F. J., 2004. A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach to

Fisheries Management and Sustainability: Linkages and

Concepts towards Best Practices. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-184. 84 pp.

Gable, F. J., 2003. A Practice-Based Coupling of the Precautionary Principle to the Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries Management Concept with a Policy Orientation:

The Northeast United States Continental Shelf as a

Case Example. Coastal Management, 31 (4), pp.435-

456.

Garcia, S.M., 2000. The FAO Definition of Sustainable Development and the Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries: An Analysis of the Related Principles, Criteria and Indicators. Marine and Freshwater Research,

51 (5), pp. 535-541.

Gauvin, J.R., K. Haflinger and M. Nerini, 1996. Implementation of a Voluntary Bycatch Avoidance Program in the

Flatfish Fisheries of the Eastern Bering Sea. In: Proceedings of the Solving Bycatch Workshop, September 25-27, Seattle, WA., Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-96-03, pp.79-85.

Gauvin, J.R. and C. Rose. 2004. The Development of a

Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) to Promote Escapement of Pacific Salmon from Pelagic Trawls Targeting

Walleye Pollock. In: Witherell, D., (editor), Managing

our Nation’s Fisheries: Past, Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference on Fisheries Management in

the United States held in Washington, D.C., November

2003. p. 218.

Giles, F., 2004. EMS Improvement Through Effective Delegation of Environmental Responsibilities. Environmental Quality Management, 12 (2), pp. 29-37.

Gober, P., 2000. In Search of Synthesis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90 (1), pp. 1-11.

Goodall, B., 1995. Environmental Auditing: A Tool for Assessing the Environmental Performance of Tourism

Firms. The Geographical Journal, 161 (1), pp. 29-37.

Gray J. S., 1999. Using Science for Better Protection of the

Marine Environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 39

(1-12), pp. 3-10.

Gray, J. S., D. Calamari, R. Duce, J.E. Portmann, P.G. Wells

and H. L. Windom, 1991. Scientifically Based Strategies for Marine Environmental Protection and Management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 22 (9), pp. 432 –

440.

Green, J. L. and 10 Others, 2005. Complexity in Ecology and

Conservation: Mathematical, Statistical, and Computational Challenges. BioScience, 55 (6), pp. 501-510.

Groundfish Forum, 2005. Sea State Program: A Voluntary

Bycatch Reduction Program that has Effectively Reduced Bycatch Rates in Trawl Fisheries. Online Available May 7th at http://www.groundfishforum.org/

Project/SeaState/SeaStsum.html. 1 p.

Gudmundsson, E. and C.R. Wessels, 2000. Ecolabeling Seafood for Sustainable Production: Implications for Fisheries Management. Marine Resource Economics, 15

(2), pp. 97-113.

Haflinger, K. E., 2004. Reducing Bycatch Through Avoidance: Utilizing Near-Real-Time Catch Sampling and

Analysis of Spatial Patterns in Occurrence of Bycatch

Species to Provide Fleets with the Information Needed
Page 18

to Avoid Bycatch. In: Witherell, D., (editor), Managing

our Nation’s Fisheries: Past, Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference on Fisheries Management in

the United States held in Washington, D.C., November

2003, p. 232.

Hall, M.A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals, 2000. ByCatch: Problems and Solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41 (1-6), pp. 204-219.

Hall, S. J. and B. M. Mainprize, 2005. Managing By-catch

and Discards: How Much Progress are we Making and

How Can we do Better? Fish and Fisheries, 6(2) pp.

134-155.

Hanna, S., 2002. Economic Investments to Improve Fisheries Management. Testimony to the U.S. Commission

on Ocean Policy Science and Policy Interface in Fisheries Management Panel, Seattle, WA. June 14, 6 pp.

Hanna, S., 1999. Strengthening Governance of Ocean Fishery Resources. Ecological Economics, 31 (2), pp. 275-

286.

Hanna, S. S., 1997. The New Frontier of American Fisheries

Governance. Ecological Economics, 20 (3), pp. 221-

233.

Hannesson, R., 2004. Eco-labelling in Fisheries: What Is It

All About? (Book Review), Fish and Fisheries, 5 (4),

pp. 344-346.

Hart, S. L., 1995. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm.

Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), pp. 986-1014.

Heissenbuttel, A. E., 1996. Ecosystem Management – Principles for Practical Application. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 730-732.

Hennessey, T., 2005. The Evolution of LME Management

Regimes: The Role of Adaptive Governance. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine

Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 319-

333.

Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), 2005. Sustaining Large

Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension. Large

Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam,

368 pp.

Hens L. and B. Nath, 2003. The Johannesburg Conference.

Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5 (1-

2), pp.7-39.

Hill, T.R., 2002. Testimony by the Chairman, New England

Fishery Management Council, before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Boston, Massachusetts, July.

Available online at: http://www.oceancommission.gov.

6 pp.

Hormozi, A.M. 1997. ISO 14000: The Next Focus In Standardization. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,

62 (3), pp. 32 – 41.

Hoagland, P., D. Jin and H. Kite-Powell, 2003. The Optimal

Allocation of Ocean Space: Aquaculture and Wild-Harvest Fisheries. Marine Resource Economics, 18 (2),

pp. 129-147.

Imperial, M.T and T. Yandle, 2005. Taking Institutions Seriously: Using the IAD Framework to Analyze Fisheries

Policy. Society and Natural Resources, 18 (6), pp. 493-

509.

Jennings, P.D. and P.A. Zandbergen, 1995. Ecologically

Sustainable Organizations: An Institutional Approach.

Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), pp. 1015–1052.

Jennings, S., 2004. The Ecosystem Approach to Fishery

Management: A Significant Step Towards Sustainable

Use of the Marine Environment? Marine Ecology

Progress Series, 274, pp. 279-282.

Jentoft, S., 1998. Social Science in Fisheries Management: A

Risk Assessment. In: Reinventing Fisheries Management, Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B., and Pauly, D. (eds.),

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series 23, pp. 177-184.

Johnson, S.L. (Deputy Administrator), 2004. Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Strategy for Determining the Role of Environmental Management Systems

in Regulatory Programs. National Center for Environmental Innovation, Memorandum and Report dated

April 12, 2004, 17 pp.

Jones, C.O., 1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public

Policy. Third Edition. Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando, Florida, 276 pp.

Joseph, J. 1994. The Tuna-Dolphin Controversy in the Eastern Pacific Ocean: Biological, Economic, and Political

Impacts. Ocean Development and International Law,

25 (1), pp. 1-30.

Juda, L., and R.H. Burroughs, 1990. The Prospects for Comprehensive Ocean Management. Marine Policy, 14 (1),

pp. 23-35.

Kaplan, I. M. and B. J. McCay, 2004. Cooperative Research,

Co-management and the Social Dimension of Fisheries

Science and Management. Marine Policy, 28 (3), pp.

257-258.

Kates, R.W., T.M. Parris and A.A. Leiserowitz, 2005. What

is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values,

and Practice. Environment, 47 (3), pp. 8-21.

Klassen, R. D., and C. P. McLaughlin, 1996. The Impact of

Environmental Management on Firm Performance,

Management Science 42 (8), pp. 1119 –1214.

Kollman, K., and A. Prakash, 2002. EMS-based Environmental Regimes as Club Goods: Examining Variations

in Firm-level Adoption of ISO 14001 and EMAS in U.K.,

U.S. and Germany. Policy Sciences, 35 (1), pp. 43-67.

Laffoley, D.d’A, E. Maltby, M.A. Vincent, L. Mee, E.

Dunn, P. Gilliland, J. Hamer, D. Mortimer, and D.

Pound, 2004. The Ecosystem Approach Coherent

Actions for Marine and Coastal Environments. Summary of Key Issues Prepared for the Second European Marine Strategy Stakeholder Workshop

Rotterdam, 10-12 November 2004, United Nations

Environment Programme, 6th Global Meeting of the

Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans

Istanbul, Turkey November 30 to December 2nd,

UNEP(DEC)/RS.6.1.INF.7, 6pp.

Larkin, S., G. Sylvia, and C. Tuininga, 2003. Portfolio Analysis for Optimal Seafood Product Diversification and
Page 19

Resource Management. Journal of Agricultural and

Resource Economics, 28 (2), pp. 252-271.

LeBlanc, C., 2003. Ecolabelling in the Fisheries Sector. Ocean

Yearbook, 17, pp. 93-141.

Logar, N. and L.K. Pollock, 2005. Transgenic Fish: Is a New

Policy Framework Necessary for a New Technology?

Environmental Science & Policy, 8 (1), pp. 17-27.

Mansfield, B., 2003. Spatializing Globalization: A “Geography of Quality” in the Seafood Industry. Economic

Geography, 79 (1), pp. 1-16.

Masood, E., D. Spurgeon, and S. Nadis, 1997. Fisheries Science: All at Sea When it Comes to Politics? Nature 386,

(6621), pp. 105-110.

McCay, B.J., 2004. ITQs and Community: An Essay on Environmental Governance. Agricultural and Resource

Economics Review, 33 (2), pp. 162-170.

Michaels, S., R. J. Mason and W. D. Solecki, 1999. The Importance of Place in Partnerships for Regional Environmental Management. Environmental Conservation,

26 (3), pp. 159-162.

Mikalsen, K. H., and S. Jentoft, 2001. From User-Groups to

Stakeholders? The Public Interest in Fisheries Management. Marine Policy, 25 (4), pp. 281-292.

Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood, 1997. Toward a

Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.

Academy of Management Science, 22 (4), pp. 853-886.

Montabon, A., S.A. Melnyk, R. Sroufe, and R.J. Calantone,

2000. ISO 14000: Assessing its Perceived Impact on

Corporate Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management; 36 (2), pp. 4-16.

Morgan, J.R., 1994. The Marine Region. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 24 (1), pp. 51-70.

Morgan, J.R., 1987. Large Marine Ecosystems: An Emerging Concept of Regional Management. Environment,

29 (10), pp. 4-9 & 29-34.

Myers, R.A. and B. Worm, 2005. Extinction, Survival or Recovery of Large Predatory Fishes. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 360 (1453), pp. 13-20.

Myers, R. A. and B. Worm, 2003. Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities. Nature, 423 (6937),

pp. 280-283.

National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. ThirdParty Auditing of Environmental Management Systems:

U.S. Registration Practices for ISO 14001. Washington,

D.C., 134 pp.

National Research Council (NRC), 2004a. Improving the Use

of the “Best Scientific Information Available” Standard

In Fisheries Management. Washington, D.C., 105 pp.

National Research Council (NRC), 2004b. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. Washington, D.C.,123 pp.

National Research Council (NRC), 1999. Environmental

Management Systems and ISO 14001. Washington,

D.C., 48 pp.

Naughten, K., 2005. Administration Introduces National

Offshore Aquaculture Act. Aquaculture Magazine, 31

(4), pp. 21-26.

Neumayer, E., and R. Perkins, 2004. What Explains the Uneven Take-up of ISO 14001 at the Global Level? A Paneldata Analysis. Environment and Planning A, 36 (5),

pp. 823-839.

NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005a. Dolphin-Safe

Determination. Online Available February 19th at http:/

/www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/

finalfinding.html.3 pp.

NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005b. Litigation

Related to the Tuna/Dolphin Program. Online Available February 19th at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/litigation.html.2 pp.

NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005c. Dolphin-Safe

Tuna. Online Available February 19th at http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/

dolphin-safe.html.2 pp.

NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005d. International

Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Online Available

February 19th at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/

PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/IDCPA.html.4 pp.

NOAA, 2002. Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals.

Federal Register 67 (90) pp. 31279 –31280.

NOAA, 2000. Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling; Official Mark.

Federal Register 65 (104)pp. 34408 -34410.

Ochsner, M., 2000. Case Study: Risk Prioritization and ISO

14001 at Acushnet Rubber Company, Environmental

Quality Management, 9 (4), pp. 45-52.

Olsen, S. 1999. Linking Integrated Coastal Management with

Large Marine Ecosystems Management. In The Gulf of

Maine Large Marine Ecosystem: Assessment,

Sustainability and Management, H. Kumpf, K.

Steidinger, and K. Sherman, (eds.)., Oxford, UK:

Blackwell Sciences. pp. 626-633.

Olsen, S.B., J. Tobey, and L.Z. Hale, 1998. A Learning-based

Approach to Coastal Management. Ambio 27(8) pp.

611-619.

Oluoch-Wauna, L. O. 2001. EMAS and ISO 14001: A Comparison. Environmental Policy and Law, 31 (4-5), pp.

237–249.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T.J. Pitcher, U. R.

Sumalia, C. J. Walters, R. Watson and D. Zeller, 2002.

Towards Sustainability in World Fisheries. Nature, 418

(6898), pp. 689-695.

Pendleton, S., and J. Nagy. 2003. EMS Implementation: Effective Planning and Targeted Action. Environmental

Quality Management, 12 (4), pp. 61-66.

Pitcher, T. J. and D. Pauly, 1998. Rebuilding Ecosystems,

not Sustainability, as the Proper Goal of Fishery Management. In: Reinventing Fisheries Management,

Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series 23,

pp. 311-329.
Page 20

Pojasek, R. B., 2002. Creating a Value-Added, PerformanceDriven Environmental Management System. Environmental Quality Management, 12 (2), pp. 81-88.

Powers, J.E., 2005. Maximum Sustainable Yield and Bycatch

Minimization “to the Extent Practicable”. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25 (3), pp. 785-

790.

Presidential Documents. 2004a. Committee on Ocean Policy.

Executive Order 13366 of December 17, 2004. (69 F.R.

76591), U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative

News, 108th Congress Second Session, Volume 5, pp.

B121 – B123.

Presidential Documents. 2004b. Facilitation of Cooperative

Conservation. Executive Order 13352 of August 26,

2004. Federal Register, 69 (167), pp. 52989–52990.

Presidential Documents. 2000. Greening the Government

Through Leadership in Environmental Management.

Executive Order 13148 of April 21, 2000 (65 F.R. 24595),

U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News, 106th

Congress Second Session, Volume 5, pp. B10-B23.

Quazi, H. A., Y-K. Khoo, C-M. Tan and P-S. Wong, 2001.

Motivation for ISO 14000 Certification: Development

of a Predictive Model. Omega, The International Journal of Management Science, 29 (6), pp. 525-542.

Raines, S.S., 2002. Implementing ISO 14001 – An International Survey Assessing the Benefits of Certification.

Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9 (4), pp. 418-426.

Raloff, J., 2005. Empty Nets: Fisheries May be Crippling

Themselves by Targeting the Big Ones. Science News,

167 (23), pp. 360-362.

Rieser, A., 1997. Property Rights and Ecosystem Management in U.S. Fisheries: Contracting for the Commons?

Ecology Law Quarterly, 24 (4), pp. 813-832.

Ritzert, C. G., 2000. Decision Points in ISO 14001. Environmental Quality Management 9 (3), pp. 65-74.

Roheim, C. A., 2003. Early Indications of Market Impacts

from the Marine Stewardship Council’s Ecolabeling of

Seafood, Marine Resource Economics, 18 (1), pp. 95-

104.

Rondinelli, D., and G. Vastag, 2000. Panacea, Common Sense,

or Just a Label? The Value of ISO 14001 Environmental

Management Systems. European Management Journal, 18 (5), pp. 499-510.

Rosenberg, A.A., 2003. Multiple Uses of Marine Ecosystems. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and

CABI Publishing, pp. 189-196.

Sainsbury, K. J., A.E. Punt, and A.D.M. Smith, 2000. Design

of Operational Management Strategies for Achieving

Ecosystem Objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 731-741.

Sainsbury, K. and U.R. Sumaila, 2003. Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Management of Sustainable

Marine Fisheries, Including ‘Best Practice’ Reference

Points and Use of Marine Protected Areas. In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair

and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing,

pp. 343-360.

Sanchirico, J.N. and S.S. Hanna, 2004. Sink or Swim Time for

U.S. Fishery Policy. Issues in Science and Technology,

21 (1), pp. 45-52.

Schmid, R.E., 2005. Proposal Would Allow Fish Farming off

U.S. Coasts. The Boston Globe, 267 (159), p. A3.

Seymour, E.J. and A.M. Ridley, 2005. Toward Environmental

Management Systems in Australian Agriculture to

Achieve Better Environmental Outcomes at the Catchment Scale. Environmental Management, 35 (3), pp.

311-329.

Sherman, K., 2005. The Large Marine Ecosystem Approach

for Assessment and Management of Ocean Coastal

Waters. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The

Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.),

Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier,

Amsterdam, pp. 3-16.

Sherman, K., 1995. Achieving Regional Cooperation in the

Management of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the

Large Marine Ecosystem Approach. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 29 (1-3), pp. 165-185.

Sherman, K., 1994. Sustainability, Biomass Yields, and Health

of Coastal Ecosystems: An Ecological Perspective.

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 112, pp. 277-301.

Sherman, K., 1991. The Large Marine Ecosystem Concept: Research and Management Strategy for Living

Marine Resources. Ecological Applications, 1 (4),

pp. 349-360.

Sherman, K. and A.M. Duda, 1999a. Large Marine Ecosystems: An Emerging Paradigm for Fisheries Sustainability.

Fisheries, 24 (12), pp. 15-26.

Sherman, K. and A.M. Duda, 1999b. An Ecosystem Approach to Global Assessment and Management of

Coastal Waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 190,

pp. 271-287.

Shrivastava, P., 1995. The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability. Academy of Management

Review, 20 (4), pp. 936-960.

Shuman, C.S., G. Hodgson and R.F. Ambrose, 2004. Managing the Marine Aquarium Trade: Is Eco-certification

the Answer? Environmental Conservation, 31 (4) pp.

339-348.

Sinclair, M., R. Arnason, J. Csirke, Z. Karnicki, J.

Sigurjonsson, H. Rune Skjoldal, and G. Valdimarsson,

2002. Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem.

Fisheries Research, 58 (3), pp. 255-265.

Sinclair, M. and G. Valdimarsson, 2003. Appendix 1: Industry

Perspectives. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine

Ecosystem. Sinclair, M. and G. Valdimarsson, eds., FAO

and CABI Publishing, pp. 405-408.

Sissenwine, M.P., and P. M. Mace, 2003. Governance for

Responsible Fisheries: An Ecosystem Approach. In:

Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Environment, M.

Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 363-390.
Page 21

Sproul, J.T., 1998a. Green Fisheries: Certification as a Management Tool. In: Reinventing Fisheries Management,

Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series 23,

pp. 137-147.

Sproul, J.T., 1998b. Sustainable Fisheries Certification &

Labeling Protocol. Online Available, December 12, 2004

at http://www.ocean98.org/sproul.htm. 7 pp.

Steger, U., 2000. Environmental Management Systems: Empirical Evidence and Further Perspectives. European

Management Journal, 18 (1), pp. 23-37.

Stapleton, P.J., M.A. Glover and S.P. Davis, 2001. Environmental Management Systems: An Implementation Guide

for Small and Medium-Sized Organizations. (second

edition), NSF International, Ann Arbor, MI., 196 pp.

Steele, L., 2005. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan: Bycatch in the Herring Fishery

– Summary of Available Data. New England Fishery

Management Council, Joint Meeting of the Herring Plan

Development Team (PDT) and the Groundfish PDT,

May 5th, Mansfield, MA. 32 pp.

Stehr Group, 2005. Company Background, Online Available

April 16, 2005 at http://www.stehrgroup.net/

background.htm. 5 pp.

Sutinen, J.G., and 15 Others, 2005. A Framework for Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance

of Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Sustaining Large

Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension,

Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 27-81.

Sutinen, J.G., (Ed.) and 15 Others, 2000. A Framework for

Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-158 32 pp.

Sutton, M., 1998. Harnessing Market Forces and Consumer

Power in Favour of Sustainable Fisheries. In: Reinventing Fisheries Management, Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B.,

and Pauly, D. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Fish

and Fisheries Series 23, pp. 125-135.

Swallow, S.K., and R.A. Sedjo, 2000. Eco-Labeling Consequences in General Equilibrium. Land Economics, 76

(1), pp. 28-36.

Swift, J. M. 2002. State Sustainability Program. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Department

Executive Order No. 438. Dated: July 23, 2002. 5 pp.

Teisl, M.F., B. Roe, and R.L. Hicks, 2002. Can Eco-Labels

Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43 (3) pp. 339-359.

The World Bank, 2004. The Reality of Success in Fisheries

Management. Policy Briefs No. 2 Good Management

Practice in Sustainable Fisheries, 4 pp.

Thornton, R.V., 2000. ISO 14001 Certification Mandate

Reaches the Automobile Industry, Environmental Quality Management, 10 (1), pp. 89-93.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2004. Sixth

Global Meeting of the Regional Seas Conventions and

Action Plans Istanbul, Turkey November 30 to December 2nd.

U.S. Congress, 1996a. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995. Public Law 104-113, March

7, 1996. United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 104th Congress Second Session Vol.

1.

U.S. Congress, 1996b. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995. Legislative History, Public

Law 104-113, March 7, 1996. United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 104th Congress

Second Session Vol. 4.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1998. Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment

Activities. OMB Circular No. A-119, February 11th,

Online Available May 14, 2005 at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html.

Valdimarrson, G., and R. Metzner, 2005. Aligning Incentives

for a Successful Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

Management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 300,

pp. 286-291.

Veeman, T.S. and J. Politylo, 2003. The Role of Institutions and Policy in Enhancing Sustainable Development and Conserving Natural Capital. Environment,

Development and Sustainability, 5 (3-4), pp. 317-

332.

von Zharen, W., M. 1999. An Ecopolicy Perspective for

Sustaining Living Marine Species. Ocean Development

& International Law, 30 (1), pp. 1-41.

von Zharen, W., M. 1998. Ocean Ecosystem Stewardship.

William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy

Review, 23 (1), pp. 1-108.

von Zharen, W. M. 1995. Environmental Governance of the

Seas, the Coastal Zone, and Their Resources. Natural

Resources & Environment, 9 (4), pp. 3-12.

Wessels, C.R., 2002. The Economics of Information: Markets for Seafood Attributes. Marine Resource Economics, 17 (2), pp. 153-162.

Wixted, P., 2003. Department of Commerce Environmental

Management System Implementation Guide. Online

Available, May 2, 2005 at http://www.osec.doc.gov/oas/

environmental/implementationguide.htm. 10 pp.

Witherell, D. (ed.), 2004. Managing our Nation’s Fisheries:

Past, Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference

on Fisheries Management in the United States held in

Washington, D.C., November 2003. 254 pp.

Wu, C-C and N. Hunt. 2000. Development of Environmental

Policy, Objectives, and Targets. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 7

(4), pp. 357 – 361.

Zeller, D., R. Froese, and D. Pauly, 2005. On Losing and

Recovering Fisheries and Marine Science Data. Marine Policy, 29 (1), pp. 69-73.

Zwight, D., 2004. Should ISO 14001 Be Used in National

Forest Planning?: Smokey and the EMS. Environmental Forum, 21 (4), pp. 28-38.
Page 22
Page 23

APPENDIX 1:

HARNESSING MARKET FORCES IN AMERICAN FISHERIES SCIENCE POLICY

(CASE EXAMPLES)

Increased public support alone will not reverse the

fisheries crisis (e.g. Table 5) although it remains a vital

component of the long-term solution. Market forces are

necessary to counter unsustainable fishing and its

proponents. One approach is available that has succeeded in other areas, that is, working in partnership with

industry to design and implement market-derived incentives for sustainable, well-managed fishing (Sutton, 1998

p. 132).

Perhaps one of the earliest best example of this strategy was the highly successful and rather controversial tunadolphin campaign of the early 1990s (see also Joseph, 1994;

Jennings, 2004). Hundreds of thousands of dolphins were

being killed in purse seine fisheries for tuna in the eastern

Pacific. Public outrage and consumer power helped provide the political incentive for the US to embargo imports of

tuna caught in an unsustainable manner resulting in excessive mortality of dolphins. Thanks to the successful marketing of dolphin-safe tuna by major seafood distributors,

the killing of dolphins in tuna fisheries was quickly reduced,

at least for U.S. based consumers. The goal of that campaign, however, was dolphin protection and not fisheries

conservation (Sutton, 1998 p. 132).

To succeed in promulgating market forces in fisheries,

the conservation community should forge alliances with

progressive members of the seafood industry. The Marine

Stewardship Council is one such joint venture (see later).

The tuna-dolphin experience suggest that finding corporate allies and redirecting market forces in favor of conservation can be quite powerful. “One thing is certain; where

public opinion, industry and the market lead, governments

will likely follow “ (Sutton, 1998 p. 132).

Another example is in U.S. North Pacific fisheries where

bycatch of prohibited species such as halibut and crab is

stringently regulated (see e.g. Witherell, 2004). Typically

every year groundfish and cod fisheries are closed because

fisherfolk have caught the regulatory bycatch cap of halibut or crab allotted to a permitted directed species fishery.

Hall et al., (2000 p. 204) states “it is clear that bycatch management will be an integral part of most future ecosystem

management schemes.”

Gear innovations are only a partial solution for reducing bycatch of these species. Gear innovations (i.e. conservation engineering), is an approach that has proven effective is area avoidance. The fishing industry’s ability to

establish avoidance of areas with higher incidence of crab

and halibut (so called bycatch “hot spots”) was once quite

limited. Traditionally fisherfolk only had access to the U.S.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) observer data

collected on their vessel and these data were often only

collected and available weeks after the bycatch occurred.

The demersal north east Pacific groundfish industry has

alleviated that situation with the creation of a voluntary

reporting system known as “Sea State.” (see e.g. Groundfish Forum, 2005; Gauvin and Rose, 2004; Haflinger, 2004;

Gauvin et. al., 1996).

Haflinger (2004 p. 232) reports that under the Sea State

program fisheries-related “observer data are available to

Sea State Inc. (Seattle, Washington; as the owner’s agent)

on a 24/7 basis via an automated Web site maintained by

the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program.” Hot spots

that are noted, where “bycatch” has been high become a

program of “voluntary” area closures. This may be akin to

a rolling industry-based marine protected area.

To get around the data barrier and improve the industry’s

ability to avoid bycatch hotspots, in “real time,” Groundfish Forum (an industry member based association) has

voluntarily contracted with a third-partly contractor known

by the name, Sea State. Sea State based in Washington

State as an independent contractor, receives NMFS data

via satellite from participating vessels. The data are used to

generate charts in a geographical information system (GIS)

that are transmitted back to vessels. These charts indicate

locales or areas where bycatch is high and the information

is updated every 24 hours. Sea State works under a data

release agreement between the industry and NMFS. Further, Sea State as the contractor provides each participating

vessel with a list of vessels and their bycatch rates, which

eliminates the excuse that the boat captain didn’t realize his

bycatch rates were high. Transparent knowledge and dissemination creates strong peer pressure that acts as an

incentive to reduce bycatch.

The Sea State Program is analogous to a fishery-based

ISO 14001 VEMS, works as follows: First, trained observers

sample hauls and estimate catch and bycatch. Second, each

vessel electronically transmits its observer data to Sea State

that checks the data and performs spatial statistical extrapolations to factor in any hauls that were not sampled. Third,

position-specific data plotted from satellite triangulation

global positioning systems (GPS) for each vessel is used to

create a chart of vessel-specific bycatch rates that is faxed

to participating member vessels within 24 hours. Fourth,

vessels move away from high bycatch areas and exert peer

pressure on any vessel that is reluctant to move.

At times, high directed fishery – target total allowable

catch (TAC) fishery – catch-rates must be sacrificed to keep

bycatch discard rates low. The industry hopes peer pressure put on those who are not participating in the example

voluntary ISO 14000 – oriented Sea State program will influence them to act for the common good of all in the regulatory industry. Accordingly the goal of the Sea State (bottom trawl) program is to allow the fleet to rapidly respond

(both individually and collectively) to high bycatch rates.

In this way, bycatch and/or discards of prohibited species
Page 24

can be minimized and the industry can more effectively stay

within its overall legislatively prescribed prohibited species regulatory bycatch caps (Gauvin et al. 1996 p. 79).

Unfortunately, throughout the country NMFS does not

have sufficient financial and manpower resources for data

processing and transmission of bycatch information in a

suitable time frame needed for bycatch avoidance (see: Hill,

2002). It cannot afford nor provide enough observers either. Moreover, government rules pertaining to confidentiality allow individual companies to receive only their own

fishing data which is neither useful for establishing bycatch

trends nor for avoidance. The contract with Sea State works

through a general clearance agreement between participating fishing enterprises, NMFS, and Sea State (Gauvin et al.

1996 p. 80). “This allows for the calculation of bycatch

rates per ton of target catch while providing protection from

general dissemination of individual catch data.” For the

identification of bycatch hot spots to be effective, there

needs to be identifiable patterns based on spatial and temporal dimensions. This science-based condition is not often met.

A crucial determinant of success for any voluntary ISO

14000–oriented VEMS program is to obtain a critical mass

of the industry to participate. Further, there must be a legitimate reason why a company would want to participate because “volunteerism normally wanes where there is no tangible reward” (Gauvin et al. 1996 p. 81). Seymour and Ridley

(2005 p. 324) link participation to the existence of “market

incentives.” There is clearly a common benefit to the industry if the program successfully prevents premature closures of fisheries prior to the TAC being taken. It also

augments sustainable development “best practices”

(Sainsbury et al., 2000; Sainsbury and Sumalia, 2003)

Some members of the North Pacific bottom trawl fleet

believe the only real long-term solution will be a management system of individual accountability wherein an individual organization or enterprise directly affects its own

economic performance by its efforts and ability to reduce

bycatch (Gauvin et al, 1996). Adoption of an ISO 14001

VEMS is just such a tool. This ISO 14000 system might be

one where individual vessels have an annual allotment of

groundfish bycatch and must stop fishing as soon as that

allotment is used up. Under such a system, companies

would have incentives to use their bycatch wisely and lower

their rates, to the maximum extent practicable, to extend

their fishing time and increase production. This would be

reflected in a transparent third-party VEMS certification

document (see, e.g. Figures 2, 3, 6, 16).

Under a system of individual accountability, an organization doing its utmost to reduce bycatch (a requirement of

the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996), even at a cost of

directed fishery target species catch, would not be affected

by a company unwilling to sacrifice target species catch to

reduce bycatch. “A system of individual bycatch quotas

would not penalize the good actors while allowing bad actors to gain economically” (Gauvin et al. 1996 p. 82).

Gauvin and Rose (2004, p. 218) report that in the U.S.

Pacific northwest “the pollock industry employs voluntary

bycatch monitoring and avoidance to rapidly identify salmon

‘hotspots’ and move fishing into lower bycatch areas,”

notwithstanding opportunity costs of “forfeiture of areas

with high pollock catch rates or fish quality.”

Corollary Discussion: Industry Initiatives –

Voluntary Bycatch Reporting in 2005

The East Coast Pelagic Association (ECPA) of Maine

elaborated on some equivalent voluntary ISO 14000-oriented

fisheries bycatch reporting. The ECPA and the herring industry are cooperatively working to develop a voluntary

bycatch avoidance program analogous to an ISO 14000-

oriented VEMS, primarily to address recent interactions with

an extremely large in relative terms, 2003 year class of haddock on Georges Bank. Some of this 2003 year class of

haddock began to be caught as incidental “bycatch” (discards) in the permitted directed herring fishery in 2004. This

led to closure of the fishery (e.g. see also: Gauvin et. al.

1996; Haflinger, 2004). The new voluntary bycatch avoidance program may be operational as early as July 2005

(Steele, 2005).

In 2004, the Atlantic herring midwater trawl fleet encountered as bycatch/discards a phenomenal 2003 yearclass of haddock along the western edge of Georges Bank

actually the largest since the 1960’s (Jon Brodziak, NMFS,

personal communication)! Herring midwater trawls are utilized to capture pelagic species successfully in many parts

of the world; locally these encounters with haddock groundfish species were an unprecedented event with detrimental

repercussions for the commercial fishery. All retention of

groundfish species by herring vessels is prohibited under

fishery regulations promulgated by the New England Fishery Management Council (Steele, 2005; but see: Federal

Register Vol. 70 (112) pp. 34055-34060, June 13, 2005). Compliance with these prohibited species regulations are complicated by herring vessel operations that utilize submergible hydraulic pumps, which limit the vessel crews ability to

successfully sort bycatch of species of similar size.

There is a need to avoid waste of both target species

(herring) and valuable U.S. Atlantic haddock that will eventually recruit to the groundfish fishery if left in the ocean

(see also Cho et al., 2005). The herring industry is pursuing

a three-pronged approach to continuing the harvest of a

healthy herring resource while minimizing incidental bycatch

of haddock. One approach coincides with gear modification research. A second is analogous to a voluntary ISO

14000-oriented VEMS bycatch avoidance program. The third

approach involves regulatory change. This “corollary discussion” is intended to describe a pilot industry project

analogous to an ISO 14000-oriented approach under development in cooperation with the Gulf of Maine Research

Institute (GMRI) of Portland, Maine, the East Coast Pelagic
Page 25

Association (ECPA) and other members of the herring industry (Steele, 2005). Avoidance programs have proven

successful in other regulated US fisheries and this pilot

project seeks to utilize “lessons learned” in successful implementation while taking into accord the difference in resources specific to the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf

LME region (e.g. Gauvin et al., 1996; Haflinger, 2004). The

objectives include the development of a program that will

assist the herring industry in minimizing haddock bycatch

to the extent practicable. Another prominent objective is to

utilize vessel information voluntarily provided on a tow by

tow basis to identify bycatch “hot spots” – during a 24

hour reporting cycle – and compile data on fishing and

environmental conditions that may influence bycatch rates,

and thus, to avoid those areas.

The 2004 Georges Bank fishing experience had some

quite significant economic impacts on herring fisherfolk and

shoreside processors. Some vessels were assessed significant fines for violations of possession of prohibited species (haddock) (Steele, 2005). Reduced effort on a healthy

resource of herring was seen immediately as vessels voluntarily agreed to leave areas of concern, so called “hot spots.”

Several processors experienced severe shortages in product and some plants were shuttered for periods during the

directed herring season (Steele, 2005).

Regulatory change is needed to address unintended

bycatch of haddock in the fishery, but the process is slow

and ponderous in a region that has been focused in recent

years on management of overfished species of low abundance and on rebuilding plans. The success of these rebuilding efforts now requires the need to develop tools to

manage abundant species interactions as a part of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (Pitcher and

Pauly, 1998). This pilot project as described and presented

in New England Fishery Management Council documents

seeks to explore the utility of a voluntary industry initiative

as a part of a co-management ISO 14000-oriented approach

to avoid and minimize incidental bycatch and regulatory

discards.

According to ECPA personnel, the herring industry feels

compelled to take proactive steps to avoid species interactions (as bycatch and discards) while regulatory actions

are formulated. The regulations were still uncertain, as of

early June, for the 2005 fishing season on Georges Bank.

The herring fishery will have an opportunity to operate

should the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement a 1,000 lb. haddock incidental bycatch limit as requested for 2005 by the New England Fishery Management

Council (NEFMC; Steele, 2005), which they did (see Federal

Register, Vol. 70 (112) pp. 34055-34060, June 13th, 2005) while

the industry continues its co-management efforts on a more

permanent bycatch monitoring program for the fishery.

To meet the objectives of the pilot project, vessels who

choose to participate in this voluntary effort will need to

report data on a “tow by tow” basis, indicating location,

bycatch rates, and other determinate factors. ECPA hosted

a captain and vessel owner meeting in June of 2005 in an

effort to reach agreement on the level of information needed

to be shared among the participants to meet the objectives

of the program. Discussions also featured confidentiality

and use of information reported. As a part of this analogous ISO 14001 VEMS–oriented effort, vessel owners and

captains will be asked to sign an agreement (as a memorandum of understanding) to comply with the terms and conditions of the consensus of the participants.

The Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland, Maine

(GMRI) has agreed to act as a clearinghouse for information reported by vessels, for compilation of data and the

subsequent reporting back to vessels on haddock bycatch

rates. Position-specific data (e.g. latitude and longitude)

for each vessel will be used to create a chart of vesselspecific bycatch rates that will be faxed or emailed to participating vessels on a 48-72 hour cycle, this cycle it is

hoped would be reduced to daily (see: Gauvin et. al., 1996).

All vessels in the directed herring fishery are currently

using a Boatraks vessel monitoring system (VMS) with email

capability that will be utilized to facilitate timely reporting of

data (Steele, 2005). The pilot project is currently investigating the use of electronic logbook software to facilitate ease

of use for captains while in operation on the sea.

During New England Fishery Management Council herring advisory meetings held in May of 2005, Steele (2005)

maintained that under regulations then in effect, vessels

must operate with zero retention of haddock. According to

ECPA personnel anticipated regulatory change (at least for

the 2005 season) will likely allow for some low levels of

retention of haddock and vessels will need to utilize consistent methods to estimate bycatch rates on individual trips.

It is suggested here that an in-place VEMS by the vessels,

with third party certification to ISO 14001 protocols will aid

in effectuating transitional regulatory change. As a part of

the overall pilot project effort to increase data the NMFS

Observer Program will endeavor to provide at-sea observers on 20% of herring trips in 2005 (Steele, 2005). This pilot

project proposes to have fisherfolk employ the same protocols and methodology used by the NMFS Observer Program for at-sea observations to allow data collection comparison. Both ought to be standardized to international

ISO 14001 VEMS protocols.

Fourteen vessels attempted to work in the marine area

of concern in 2004. These vessels are known and definable

and have been successful in achieving compliance with

industry oriented agreements or memorandums of understanding (MOU) in recent years. While this project does

not anticipate a significant change in vessels operating in

the fishery in 2005, the open-access and common property

nature of the fishery may complicate full compliance if many

choose not to participate in this voluntary approach. The

NEFMC is preparing an amendment to the Atlantic Herring

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that will analyze a limited

access program that may be implemented for the fishery in

the near future (Steele, 2005). It is suggested here that

those vessels employing an ISO 14000-oriented voluntary

environmental management system (VEMS) with third-party
Page 26

certification will find favor with regulators when prospective limited entry “dedicated access privileges” are granted

(see, e.g. Hart, 1995).

Herring vessels were unable to operate prior to the total allowable catch (TAC) being taken in some areas of the

fishery in 2004 because of unavoidable haddock bycatch.

Limited by regulation, vessel captains where unable to ascertain any correlations in directed herring fishing patterns

that could influence overall bycatch rates temporally or

spatially. There is a clear need for collection of information

to define the extent of the problem in the fishery (Steele,

2005). This pilot project to self report seeks to assess fishing data to determine bycatch rates in “real time” and identify any long term or seasonal trends of interactions with

the rebuilding haddock resource (see also Gauvin et al.,

1996; Haflinger, 2004).

As mentioned earlier, the herring industry will also be

looking at gear modifications in 2005 and beyond to minimize incidental bycatch. That research will utilize available

information on fish behavior (haddock/herring) to test modifications for midwater trawls to improve escapement of haddock. A cooperative research project has partnered the

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Plymouth,

Massachusetts with, GMRI, NMFS and ECPA to seek funding to fully test modifications to midwater trawls to increase

escapement of haddock. Perhaps congressionally approved

Saltonstall Kennedy funds would be quite appropriate for

this endeavor (but see Buck, 2004 for his assessment of

funding problems with this 50 year old law).

While the goal of some flume tank gear work is to minimize bycatch, the need for active avoidance of areas of high

bycatch by the industry is still required by regulation. The

voluntary bycatch reporting pilot project identified in this

corollary discussion would allow the industry to experimentally test the effectiveness of a self-regulated process

as a part of an adaptive management ISO 14001 VEMS approach, to collect data while minimizing bycatch rates in the

directed herring fishery.

In summary, while the data may provide some perspective on the nature and extent of catch and incidental bycatch

on vessels using pelagic gear and catching herring, they

are not comprehensive enough as yet to draw any specific

conclusions about the herring fishery as a whole, nor about

any specific individual gear type. Steele (2005) makes the

case that it therefore would be inappropriate to conclude

that groundfish bycatch is a problem in the herring fishery,

just as it would be inappropriate to conclude that groundfish bycatch is nonexistent in the herring fishery. Additional ecosystem-oriented information is required to make

such conclusions, though, however, year class 2003 haddock appear to be a “problem” for the directed herring fishery. Sinclair et al., (2002 p. 261) stated “heavy fishing on

small pelagics such as herring, capelin, sardines and anchovies has resulted in changes in the distribution and

abundance of predatory fish...”

Overall, observer data from the herring fishery are not

sufficient to uphold a robust statistical analysis to determine groundfish discard/kept ratio at this time (Steele, 2005).

The observer coverage of the herring fishery during the

2004 fishing year was a pilot program, and the adequacy of

the temporal and spatial coverage has as yet to be evaluated for regulatory purposes. Although the basic sampling

protocol is well-defined, the effects of individual vessel

sorting procedures on sampling also require rigorous evaluation (Steele, 2005).

The Maine Department of Marine Resources/Manomet

data probably provide the best perspective on the nature of

bycatch in the directed herring fishery. These data only

represent a snapshot however, of the fishery as they were

collected in 1997 and 1998. No similar projects have been

undertaken to investigate bycatch in the directed herring

fishery since that time. The project conducted by ME DMR

that utilized portside bycatch sampling may be a cost-effective way to obtain a significant amount of information to

complement the at-sea observer information (e.g. Bache,

2003).

Bache (2003 p. 103) indicates that “largely through the

allocation of catch quotas and access rights “ownership

privileges to commercial fisherfolk are perceived to accrue.”

Bache (2003 p. 122) emphasizes that in order to mitigate the

bycatch of commercial species different approaches are required, however, “there is no one size fits all solution to

bycatch problems.” Some available tools include the use of

market measures and incentive programs, and the voluntary ISO 14001 VEMS approach may be an appropriate tool

or mechanism for integrating ecological information into

natural resource management policy (see also: Brown and

MacLeod, 1996).
Page 27

APPENDIX 2:

A SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATEGY FOR THE OCEAN’S ECOSYSTEM

THROUGH VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(S) (VEMS)

IN AN LME FRAMEWORK

While described in other documents at length (see

Sherman, 1994, 1995) briefly, the concept of LMEs emerged

from an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected symposium in the mid 1980s concerning variability and management of large marine ecosystems (Sherman 1991; Alexander, 1993; Morgan, 1994; Morgan, 1987). Rosenberg (2003 p. 190) states that the “LME

concept is helpful for thinking of the linkages of biological,

chemical and physical factors of transboundary coastal

ocean areas. Affecting any one part of the LME can have

repercussions throughout the region. The LME provides a

framework for thinking about potential impacts.” The impacts on fisheries ecosystems including the biological,

oceanographic and physical environment that supports

commercial and recreational species within a specified management area and other economic activities such as sand

and gravel mining, submarine telecommunications links, oil

and gas energy development, marine transportation, contaminants disposal, recreational tourism and aquaculture,

can occur at the scale of LMEs or may be localized in scope

(Rosenberg 2003). Rosenberg (2003 p. 194) also points out

“aquaculture may cause habitat degradation and competitive interactions between farmed and wild fish, which in

combination reduce the productivity of the ecosystem and

hence fisheries” (see: Dalton, 2005). This large marine ecosystem (LME) approach or concept may involve integrating stewardship of the ocean’s ecosystem into a workable

and adaptive voluntary environmental management system

(VEMS) as a part of the socio-economic and governance

modules (see Figure 11). Although a VEMS may take many

forms, there are essential ingredients that ought to be included. A viable VEMS ought to consider the viewpoints

of identifiable stakeholders and interested parties to maximize the potential for achieving objectives in gaining maximum sustainable yield from “public trust” resources. Therefore, effective stewardship ought to be predicated on several principles (von Zharen 1998 pp. 107-108: see Figure 22).

Hanna, (1999 p. 282) emphasizes “moving to ecosystem

management requires an explicit consideration of multiple

objectives not only for the production of commodity species but also for the protection of species that provide ecosystem services, it also requires a mechanism to overcome

difficulties presented by entrenched single-species interests.” It also requires a central organizing principle, (Juda

and Burroughs, 1990) ecosystems are such organizing principles (Hanna, 1999 p. 282). “Improving fishery governance

will require that tradeoffs between species be considered

within a context of ecosystem portfolios (e.g. Edwards et

al., 2005; Edwards, 2005; Edwards et al., 2004; Larkin et al.,

2003) with the objective to maximize the sum of commodity

and service values over the long term” (Hanna, 1999 p. 283;

see Figure 23).

“Incentives could be realigned to provide rewards to

both users and managers for behavior that promotes sustainable use, for example, by making the continuation of

both rights of access (referred to as “dedicated access privileges: CEQ, 2004) and rights of management contingent on

positive contributions and innovation” (Hanna, 1999 p. 283).

It is proffered that the utilization of an ISO 14001 VEMS is

just such an innovation.

It may be noteworthy that the second organization in

the United States to receive ISO 14001 certification of its

voluntary environmental management system was the

Acushnet Rubber Company of New Bedford, Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of

1989 provided the impetus for Acushnet to fulfill ISO 14000

requirements for continuous environmental improvement

(Ochsner, 2000). This example is meant to illustrate that

organizations in “fishing communities” have already instituted VEMS applications.

“It must be acknowledged that the initial development

and implementation of the (voluntary) environmental management system will take time and money” (Pendleton and

Nagy, 2003 p. 62). To find prospective funding, Buck (2004

p. 1) indicates that the “objective of the Saltonstall-Kennedy

(S-K) Act (established in 1954) program is to address the

needs of fishing communities in providing economic benefits for rebuilding and maintaining sustainable fisheries,

and in dealing with the impacts of conservation and management measures.” Thus, it is reasoned here that a rejuvenated S-K program could provide pilot funding for fisheries

industry-based ISO 14001 VEMS development and

partnering (but see Buck, 2004).

In the United States, the EPA strategy in determining

the role of voluntary environmental management systems

(VEMS) in regulatory programs is to ensure that “voluntary

programs will remain the primary way in which the agency

promotes and encourages the use of environmental management system’s,” in part, to improve regulatory compliance and obtain continuously improved environmental results (Johnson, 2004 p. 2). The EPA feels that when regulators focus on performance, certain implementation considerations are warranted. They believe “(voluntary) environmental management systems generally should not be used

to replace performance standards defined by regulatory

programs (one example may include the 10 National Standards found in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996), but

can be useful tools for organizations to use to achieve such

standards” (Johnson, 2004 p. 4). The EPA also proffers that

nonregulatory VEMS elements are conditions for receiving
Page 28

regulatory benefits (perhaps in the case of fisheries – “dedicated access privileges”). Voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) are a multimedia approach

whereby an organization can effectively take into account

unregulated environmental impacts and regulatory requirements in unison. A VEMS can also be utilized as an adaptive management policy experiment.

It is quite possible that incorporating a VEMS into a

permit could yield better environmental results and public

(stakeholder) involvement than traditional permit models.

For exclusive economic zone (EEZ) public trust fishery resources, involving the public through VEMS’s may meet

the letter and spirit or intent of required statutory and regulatory permit provisions and may forestall a bevy of lawsuits. It could also be designed so that confidentiality remains respected and balanced for the permit holder. It is

also prospectively possible that VEMS’s could facilitate

the generation and tracking of permitted fisheries “dedicated access privileges” and the subsequent trading programs that result from implementation of individual transferable quotas (ITQ’s). The “dedicated access privileges”

of trading permits and catch within the framework of a VEMS

could aid regulators in determining the net environmental

and ecosystem-oriented health impacts from trading programs as a result of such “dedicated access privileges.”

The gear makers (hook, net and so forth) could be persuaded as “third parties” suppliers to actively engage in

voluntary environmental management system development and continuous environmental performance (sort of

like the automotive industry suppliers). Linking permits

or “dedicated access privileges” to high quality VEMS’s

and certification could become an important element in

the human dimension (see Figures 24, 25) to continuous

environmental improvement of sustainable large marine

ecosystems (see: Stehr Group, 2005). If the adaptive management VEMS experiment does not achieve stated goals

or is terminated (as a policy orientation approach; see:

Gable, 2003, Table 6) by either a participant permittee or a

regulator, or by legislation, any deferred requirements may

need to be reinstated under a new permit. In linking permits or “dedicated access privileges” and VEMS’s the

monitoring and verification for compliance with key permit terms and conditions can be accomplished at the dock

during unloading of catch, through contracted fishery observers, or perhaps through electronic vessel monitoring

systems (VMS). All of which are used in one form or

another today. The fishery resource implications to regulators of substituting VEMS terms and conditions for permit provisions are such that market-based initiatives,

which are supported by the present U.S. Administration,

will foster humans as integral parts with large marine ecosystem resources and their subsequent sustainable use

(see: Sherman, 2005).
Page 29

APPENDIX 3:

THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL AQUATIC

VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Two global organizations announced in February 1996

a “partnership” to create economic incentives for sustainable fishing by establishing an independent non-profit

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The world’s largest

private, non-profit conservation group, the World Wide

Fund for Nature (WWF) sought a new approach to help

ensure more effective management of marine fisheries. It

partnered with Anglo-Dutch Unilever Corporation, one of

the world’s largest buyers of frozen fish and producer of

well-known frozen fish products under such brands as Iglo,

Bird’s Eye and Gorton’s, they were interested in long-term

fish stock sustainability to ensure a future for its successful fish business. While these organizations may have different motivations, they possessed a shared objective –

“to ensure the long-term viability of global fish populations

and the health of the marine ecosystems on which they

depend” (Sutton, 1998 p. 133).

The MSC, established in early 1997, is an independent

non-profit, non-governmental body. The MSC continues

in developing a broad set of biological, environmental, economic and social principles and criteria for sustainable fishing through worldwide consultations and as Mikalsen and

Jentoft (2001 p. 288) proclaim, the MSC initiative is a strategy to mobilize and empower consumers as stakeholders to

improve management practices. According to von Zharen

(1999 p. 19) the MSC hosted an open series of regional and

national consultations and workshops around the world to

“refine and strengthen the principles and agree on a process for international implementation.” The MSC accredits

independent certification firms that apply the criteria, or

standards, to individual fisheries. Products will come from

fisheries that are not exhibiting signs of overfishing, and

only fisheries meeting these standards will be eligible for

certification. Products made from fish caught in accordance

with MSC standards will receive an “on-pack” logo similar

in concept to the “dolphin-safe” logo appearing on cans of

tuna (see also Teisl et al., 2002; NOAA, 2000 and 2002;

Joseph, 1994). As with a “green seal” certification of products determined to be environmentally sound, the logo would

assist organizations and individuals in making environmentally responsible choices. A label represents that the fish

are taken from sustainably managed fisheries. Seafood companies are encouraged to join sustainable buyers’ groups

and to make commitments to purchase fish products from

certified sources. This element necessitates, then, a guarantee that an organization has integrated VEMS precepts

that supports sustainability and that it will form partnerships whenever possible to encourage sustainable perspectives (von Zharen, 1999 p. 19). Ultimately, only fisheries

meeting specific standards shall be eligible for certification

by independent, accredited certifying firms. Seafood companies will be encouraged to make commitments to purchase fish products from certified sources only. By analogy products from fisheries certified to ISO 14000 series

standards may be marked with a logo on the package. This

would theoretically provide seafood consumers selection

of fish products that come from a verifiable sustainable

source (Sutton, 1998; see: e.g. Stehr Group, 2005; Gable,

2004 and 2003).

Allison (2001 p. 945) wrote about market incentives for

sustainable U.S. fisheries remarking that in 1997, The World

Wide Fund for (WWF) and the Unilever Corporation

launched the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to harness market forces and the power of consumer choice in

favor of sustainable, well-managed fisheries. Certification

on biological, environmental, economic and social criteria

is carried out by independent firms. Products are marked

with an MSC logo or equivalent to allow consumers to select those that come from an acknowledged sustainable

source (see also Sutton, 1998 p. 133).

Voluntary market-based measures appear likely to become more readily and widely adopted and could improve

the management of export-orientated fisheries in developing countries (and many developed-country fisheries).

They may also have the indirect effect of reducing the negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of competition between ‘industrial’ and ‘artisanal’ fisheries in many

LME’s by forcing the larger-scale producers to comply with

policies protecting small-scale fishing interests, in order to

gain certification (Allison, 2001; p. 946).

The creation of the MSC or equivalent, such as ISO

14020, has the potential to significantly alter fishing practices everywhere in favor of more sustainable, less destructive fisheries. When Unilever and other major seafood companies make commitments to buy their fish products only

from well-managed and MSC-certified fisheries, many in the

fishing industry will be compelled to modify their present

practices (see e.g. Pauly et al., 2002; Myers and Worm, 2005

and 2003; Raloff, 2005). Governments, laws, and treaties

aside, the market itself will begin to determine the means of

fish production. The costs of environmental protection

and the development of sustainable fisheries will thus be

distributed through the market chain, rather than falling

disproportionately on the shoulders of one or more sectors

(Sutton, 1998 p. 133).

Roheim (2003 p. 96) reports that the first fishery certified to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standards was

in 2000. She suggests that consumers who purchase ecolabeled fishery products support healthier large marine ecosystems. It should be noted however, that Hannesson (2004
Page 30

p. 345) argues that many of the MSC ecosystem management (eco-label) principles have little or nothing to do with

increasing the long-term supplies of fish at maximum sustainable yield, and that they are open to interpretation (see

also: Mansfield, 2003).

The role of society, through eco-labelling, ethical trade,

and NGO lobbying and representation has yet to be felt as

a significant governing force though, however, it seems

likely to become more important with the prospective transition to rights-based fishing or, “dedicated access privileges” in the USA (see for example, Allison, 2001 p. 947;

Sutinen et al., 2000; Sutinen et al., 2005).

For example, Allison (2001 p. 948) reports that smallscale fisherfolks’ representative organizations in India have

been successful in capturing the attention of their own government and international donors and NGOs in supporting

their interests over those of the ‘industrial’ sector. This

may herald and foster an era of greater emphasis on the

socio-economic goals of fishery science and management

and a return to ecologically sustainable means of exploitation (McCay, 2004).

Nevertheless, in a conservation partnership, “the MSC

sets out broad principles of sustainable fishing and specific standards for individual fisheries. The purpose of the

independent, nonprofit, nongovernmental membership

body is to halt global fish population declines by promoting market-based incentives for sustainable fishing modeled on approaches to sustainable forestry. The MSC creates a new standard for fish products from sustainable

sources and spells out specific certifiable standards for individual fisheries” (von Zharen, 1999 p. 18; von Zharen,

1998 p. 94).

Discussion: Voluntary Environmental Management System (VEMS) Certification in an LME

Framework

In general terms, the ISO or MSC eco-label simply confirms that the product is what it says it is (see: Stehr Group,

2005; LeBlanc, 2003). Also certified is the documentation

describing the process by which the product came about.

If it were specifically applied to LME fisheries, however,

and United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization

(FAO) “Code of Conduct of Responsible Fisheries” voluntary criteria were employed by example, the process could

certify and label the sustainability of a fishery an institutional ecological practice (Sproul, 1998b p. 143). The ISO

14000 series on environmental management includes both

organizational evaluation and product/process evaluation

practices. These continue to be refined by the ISO TC 207

with the first “new and improved” series designated as ISO

14000:2004 released on November 15th 2004 (Table 4). It is

important to note that the international eco-labelling protocol is an important aspect of ISO product evaluation that is

actively being pursued in many international LME settings

(e.g. Stehr Group, 2005).

A coordinated approach throughout LME’s would ensure a more rapid worldwide acceptance of this important

initiative to incorporate environmental practice within the

fishing industry’s production and services cycle (Sproul,

1998b p. 144). In addition, it would provide political and

economic incentives for conveying transparently that information in a consistent and, concise manner to all stakeholders and consumers. In the absence of a unified advance, several potentially conflicting fishery certification

initiatives will emerge and confuse the public and dilute or

destroy the credibility of the practice for all (by analogy for

a review see e.g. Joseph, 1994). The stage is potentially set

for such a confrontation in fisheries certification. Sproul

(1998b p. 144) advocates that the existing ISO 14000 protocol and Marine Stewardship Council must coordinate their

efforts in this endeavor. In fisheries certification, multiple

standardization schemes such as those occurring in forestry can prove counter-productive, and ought to be

avoided (Sproul, 1998b p. 144; see also Swallow and Sedjo,

2000).

Using the dolphin-friendly tuna product to demonstrate

that higher prices are not necessary, fish processors and

retailers are not expected to charge a premium for

sustainably-sourced fish. The first U.S.-based company to

adopt the MSC program illustrates the diversity of participants: Special Expeditions is a tour company who pledged

to serve sustainably-caught fish on its cruises (von Zharen,

1998 p. 93). Therefore, it may seem that a primary requirement among many of a holistic marine species management

strategy is VEMS certification (see Figure 15). The planning process for marine life management also can be enhanced through numerous information-planning tools,

such as geographic information systems (GIS) technology, to integrate data from a variety of sources (Zeller et

al., 2005).

Often regarded in terms of allocation between competing parts of the fishery sector, trade-offs between species

are seen as a political issue in single-species management

(Pitcher and Pauly, 1998 p. 325). Thus, von Zharen (1999 p.

21) remarks that the pace of shifting the approach from

single-species management to ecosystem-oriented

sustainability must quicken. To carry out effective and

innovative environmental management programs all have a

stake in developing the commitment, knowledge, and technology. Global large marine ecosystem management with a

VEMS process is a difficult challenge, one that requires

special initiatives, management, and a vision towards global stewardship. As part of ecosystem-oriented management, all interacting species are included in a multispecies

resource evaluation (Pitcher and Pauly, 1998 p. 325).

From a large marine ecosystem (LME) perspective, principles for effective environmental standards can be drawn

from existing negotiated voluntary governance mechanisms,

such as the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and applied to individual firms involved in fishing or

seafood production and export, or to a whole fishery through

fisheries associations (Allison, 2001 p. 946).
Page 31

Table 1. Prospective Contents of an Ecosystem Area Management Plan for Sustainable Fisheries. The following items and

content are suggested for the Ecosystem Area Management Plan, source: adapted and modified from “Core Ecosystem and Fishery Management International Performance Standard for the Marine Aquarium Trade” (see: http://

macweb.inets.com) online available July 30, 2005. Alverson (2004 p. 647) reiterates that as a starting point “an initial

step may require only that managers consider how the harvesting of one species might impact other species in the

ecosystem.”

Title of the Ecosystem Area Management Plan;

Geographical area of operation of the marine fishery, and the jurisdiction under which it falls;

History of collection and management;

Particulars of the stakeholders with interests in the marine fishery;

Details of consultations leading to the management of the marine fishery;

Arrangements for on-going consultations with stakeholders;

Details of decision-making process or processes, including the recognized participants;

Goals and objectives for the marine fishery to include:

Resource;

Environmental and ecological;

Biological diversity;

Technological and;

Socio-economic items and/or content;

List of the marine organisms caught and the quantities and sizes involved;

Overview of fishing methods;

Basic description of the aquatic ecosystem, its status, and any particularly sensitive areas, features, or species

influencing or affected by the marine commercial and/or recreational fishery;

Description of other legitimate uses that impact on the fishing area ecosystem(s);

Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the marine fishery, and particulars of the nature of

those rights (dedicated access privileges in the U.S.);

Basic description for measures agreed upon for the regulation of the collection and fishing of marine organisms

within the designated ecosystem area. These may include general and specific measures, precautionary measures,

contingency plans, mechanisms for emergency decisions, etc.

Details of any critical environments (essential fish habitat (EFH)) or sources of concern and required actions to

address them;

Arrangements and responsibilities for regular monitoring, control and surveillance, and enforcement. New management, monitoring, and surveillance methods that prove to be beneficial to minimizing ecosystem impact and organism mortality should be adopted.

Details of any planned education and training for stakeholders;

Date and nature of next review and audit of the Ecosystem Area Management Plan.
Page 32

Table 2. Examples of ISO 14000 voluntary environmental management systems and tools. Adapted and modified from

information available at http://www.iso.ch: see also Gable, (2003, p. 439).

ISO 14001 requires the preparation of VEMS audits.

The guidance for carrying out such audits can be found in ISO 14010, ISO 14011, and ISO 14012

documentation.

ISO 14001, via guidelines found in ISO 14031, requires an organization to monitor and measure the

environmental performance of its activities. In the case at hand, for example, the organization’s adherence to all 10 National Standards found in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-297).

ISO 14001, via guidelines and standards found in ISO 14020 and ISO 14040, requires an organization

to consider and take into account the identification and analysis of the environmental aspects of its

products and/or services, in part through labels and declarations. Certification as “ISO 14000 compliant” is also available and desirable.
Page 33

Table 3. Some examples of ISO 14001 VEMS environmental policy options, adapted and modified from Ritzert (2000, p. 73),

compare with Table 4.

Process Option Questions ISO 14001: 1996 VEMS Requirements 

Who will be involved in developing the policy? “(T)op management shall define” – but the standard 

does not restrict involvement to top management. 

How will the process of writing the policy be 

defined/described? 

No specific requirements on what process should be 

used, but subject to requirements for document 

control (see below). “Procedures and 

responsibilities shall be established and maintained 

concerning the creation and modification...” 

How will the process involve aspects and impacts 

information? 

Policy must be “appropriate to” impacts. Implied 

requirement to use impacts information in setting 

policy. 

How should the policy be made available to the 

public? Via an annual report? Website? 

Newspaper? Posting in public areas of facilities? 

Available on request? 

Policy must be available to the public; no 

requirement on how. Requirement is passive; it 

does not require action to ensure that the policy is 

communicated. 

What should be included in the policy statement? 

Other commitments? Language addressing 

relationship to impacts? Performance intentions? 

Guiding principles? 

Typically three requirements 

(see also Figures 1-25): 

Must be “appropriate” to environmental 

impacts of activities, products, and services. 

Must include commitments to continual 

improvement, and compliance. 

Must provide framework for setting objectives 

and targets. 

What format should be used for the policy? Should 

there be more than one format for different 

audiences? Should it be signed? 

Only format requirement is that the policy be 

documented. ISO 14001 allows paper or electronic 

format. Since the policy statement is a VEMS 

document, it must be managed under the document 

control system; the requirements of Clause 4.4.5 

apply (including requirements regarding date, 

current version, etc.). From a practical standpoint, 

this implies a need for both controlled and 

uncontrolled copies of the policy statement. 
Page 34

Table 4. Comparison ISO 14000:1996 and ISO 14000:2004, open literature source: (EMSL 2005) Environmental Management

System Library (EMSL) Road to Successful (Voluntary) Environmental Management System Implementation. Online

at http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/ems/index.html.

 

Element ISO 14000:2004 Key Changes 

4.1 

General Requirements 

New requirements to: 

Document, implement and continually improve the VEMS. 

Determine how the organization will fulfill the requirements of ISO 

14001. 

Define and document the scope of the VEMS. 

4.2 

Environmental Policy 

New requirement to define the Policy within the scope of the VEMS. 

Limitation of compliance commitment to those legal and other 

requirements related to the environmental aspects. 

Policy must be communicated to others working in support of the 

organization, as well as to employees. Alternate forms of communication, 

such as guidance on specific sections of the Policy could be used to 

communicate with contractors and others. 

4.3.1 

Environmental aspects 

The aspects procedure must be implemented. 

The requirement to identify aspects is limited to those within the scope of 

the VEMS. 

A new requirement to include planned or new developments and activities 

within the aspects process (formerly under 4.3.4). 

New requirement for documentation of the information from the aspects 

identification and significance determination processes. 

Significant aspects are to be considered in establishing, implementing and 

maintaining the VEMS. 

4.3.2 

Legal and other 

requirements 

The procedures must be implemented 

New requirement to determine the applicability of legal/other requirements 

to environmental aspects. 

New requirement to consider environmental legal and other requirements in 

development, implementation and maintenance of the full VEMS 

4.3.3 

Objectives, targets and 

programme(s) (formerly 

Objectives and targets) 

Objectives and targets must be documented and implemented. 

Objectives and targets should be measurable 

Objectives and targets should be consistent with legal and other 

requirements. 

Objectives and targets should be consistent with the commitment to 

continual improvement. 

Text from 1996 element 4.3.4 Environmental management programme(s)

has been moved to this element. 

4.3.4 

Environmental management 

programme(s) 

The requirement to establish programs has been moved to 4.3.3 Objectives, 

targets and programme(s) 

The final paragraph referencing new developments was moved to 4.3.1 

Environmental aspects 

4.4.1 

Resources, roles, 

responsibility and authority 

(Formerly Structure and 

responsibility) 

New requirement that management provide resources for establishing, 

implementing, maintaining and improving the VEMS. 

Expands list of resources to include organizational infrastructure, as well as 

people, technology and dollars. 

Management representative should include recommendations for 

improvement when reporting to top management on the performance of the 

VEMS. 
Page 35

Table 4 continued.

4.4.2 

Competence, training and 

awareness (Formerly 

Training, awareness and 

competence 

Requirements apply to persons working in support of the organization, not 

just to employees. Contractors, volunteers etc. also must be competent to 

perform tasks associated with significant environmental impacts. 

Records of training or other action must be kept to demonstrate everyone’s 

competence. 

Specific requirement to identify training needs relevant to environmental 

aspects and the VEMS. 

Awareness procedure must be implemented 

4.4.3 

Communication 

Procedure should be implemented 

New requirement to decide whether or not to communicate externally about 

significant aspects and to implement the external communication, if the 

answer is yes. 

4.4.4 

Documentation 

(Formerly Environmental 

management system 

documentation) 

New requirement for documentation to include: 

The environmental policy, objectives and targets, 

Description of the scope of the VEMS 

Descriptions of elements of the VEMS including their interaction and 

references to related documents, 

Documents, including records, required by the Standard, and 

Documents, including records, needed to manage processes associated 

with significant aspects 

4.4.5 

Control of documents 

(formerly Document 

control) 

Identifies records as a special type of document requiring control. 

Expands applicability to all documents required by the VEMS, as well as 

by the Standard 

New requirement for identification and control of documents of external 

origin (e.g. permits) necessary to the VEMS 

4.4.6 

Operational Control 

No significant changes. Addition of the requirement to implement the 

procedure. 

Subtle word change to communicate applicable procedures and 

requirements. 

4.47 

Emergency preparedness 

and response 

No significant changes. Addition of the requirement to implement the 

procedure 

4.5.1 

Monitoring and 

Measurement 

Change from recording information to track performance, which implies 

records of results achieved or activities already performed, to documenting 

information to monitor performance, which has more immediacy 

Requirement that calibrated or verified equipment is used rather than that 

equipment shall be calibrated again implies immediacy. 

The requirement for periodic evaluation of compliance with environmental 

legislation and regulations has been moved to the new element 4.5.2 

4.5.2 

Evaluation of compliance 

(NEW ELEMENT) 

Evaluation of compliance now includes both applicable legal requirements 

and other requirements to which an organization subscribes. 

New requirement to keep records of these evaluation(s). 

4.5.3 

Nonconformity, corrective 

action and preventive action 

(Formerly 4.5.2 

Nonconformance and 

corrective and preventive 

action 

This element clearly states requirements for: 

Implementing the procedure 

Investigation and determination of the causes of nonconformance to 

avoid recurrence. 

Evaluation of the need for actions to prevent occurrence/recurrence 

Records of the results of corrective and/or preventive actions 

Review of the effectiveness of the actions taken 
Page 36

Table 4 continued.

4.5.4 

Control of records 

(formerly 4.5.3 Records) 

New requirement for records to demonstrate results achieved, e.g., results 

of corrective action, programs to achieve objectives and targets etc. 

No longer specifies training records, audit results and reviews. Explicit 

requirements for these records are incorporated into the appropriate 

element. 

Broader interpretation of records required, including records to demonstrate 

conformity with the requirements of the VEMS. 

4.5.5 

Internal audit 

(Formerly 4.5.4 

Environmental management 

system audit) 

New emphasis on planning the schedule, procedures, conduct, reporting 

and record keeping for internal audits. 

New responsibility for retaining records associated with the audit. 

New responsibility for selecting auditors and conducting audits that ensure 

the objectivity and impartiality of the audit process. 

Annex A references ISO 19011 guidance on auditing of VEMS. 

4.6 

Management Review 

Specifies inputs to the management review process including: 

Results of internal audits and evaluations of compliance with legal and 

other requirements, 

Communication from external interested parties, including complaints, 

The environmental performance of the organization, 

The extent to which objectives and targets have been met, 

The status of preventive and corrective actions, 

Follow-up actions from previous management reviews, 

Changing circumstances including developments in legal and other 

requirements, and 

Recommendations for improvement. 

Specifies outputs of the management review including decisions and 

actions regarding possible changes to: 

The environmental policy 

Objectives 

Targets 

Other elements of the VEMS 
Page 37

Table 5. Summary of suggested reasons for the inadequacy or failure of fisheries management in either a domestic or

international setting or both. Many or all of these may apply to an individual directed fishery. Source: adapted and

modified from Allison (2001 p. 936).

1. “Dedicated access privileges” and ownership regimes unsuitable or poorly defined, leading to ‘Tragedy

of the Commons.’

2. Lack of political will to limit fishing, due to the major economic importance of the fisheries sector in

some localities.

3. Conflict with other uses of the ocean, principally as a ‘common sink’ for discharge of pollutants and

degradation (i.e. filling in) of key coastal habitats (e.g. salt marsh, mangroves, and also coral reefs)

leading to “essential fish habitat” degradation affecting fishery yields.

4. Inadequate financing and capacity to enforce a nations fishery and ocean laws, allowing circumvention

of management aimed at sustaining stocks; also problems with monitoring “high seas” resources.

5. Prevalence of production-orientated resource ‘development’ paradigm, leading to neglect of

sustainability issues.

6. Subsidized over-capacity in fishing fleets; subsidies mask signals of resource scarcity.

7. Failure to manage the consequences of rapid technological and political change.

8. Failure to specify and/or adhere to long-term management objectives and goals to allow for rational

sector-wide planning and sustainability.

9. Lack of resource-user involvement in management and policy making, i.e., co-management protocols.

10. Inadequate or incorrect scientific advice on sustainable harvesting levels and a management system that

is under-reliant on proper scientific advice.

11. Insufficient consideration of social, economic and political dimensions of sustainable fisheries by fisheries

extension and/or advisory services.

12. Value of marine ecosystem services not taken into account in the prevalent single-species management

approaches.

13. Pelagic and transboundary nature of fish stocks – several commercial and recreational species move

through multi-governed spaces.

14. Failure to adequately account for natural (climate-induced) variability in resource productivity and

sustainability in most management/development plans.
Page 38

Table 6. Selected prospective stages in the policy orientation process as part of an ecosystem-oriented LME moduleapproach to fisheries management and sustainability. Adapted and modified from, e.g., Jones (1984); Gable, (2003

and 2004) and references cited therein. The bold highlighted stages below indicate “significant scientific input for

this activity” (Burroughs, 1996).

Definition of problems in society (problem definition)

Initiation/invention may include preliminary investigation of management concepts

Aggregation of concerned individuals, e.g., stakeholders, also public awareness

Organization or initiation, e.g., stakeholders consensus building

Representation, access to decision makers maintained

Agenda setting

Formulation of proposals (by government)

Legitimization of program by elected government

Preparation of a program may include pilot projects as a potential pre-test

Estimation may include a more thorough assessment of management concepts

Selection may provide benefits by reducing uncertainty about various options

Prediction of policy decisions in planning and managing natural resources

Budgeting for governmental program and (formal adoption of program)

Adoption of organizational and legal mechanisms

Implementation of government program by key actors

Evaluation of program

Refining and consolidating, including, e.g., program monitoring

Adjustment and/or termination, including how adjustments come about
Page 39

Table 7. National Standards to provide for the conservation and management of fisheries from the U.S. Sustainable Fisheries

Act of 1996, Public Law 104-297 October 11, this law is likely to be amended by Congress in 2006

1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,

the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

2. Conservation and management measures shall be based on the best scientific information available.

3. To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and

interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.

4. Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it

becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such

allocation shall be

(a) fair and equitable to all such fishermen;

(b) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and

(c) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation or other entity acquires an

excessive share of such privileges.

5. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of

fishery resources; except that no such measures shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.

6. Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and

contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

7. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary

duplication.

8. Conservation measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirement of the Act (including the

prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of

fishery resources to fishing communities in order to

(a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and

(b) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

9. Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable

(a) minimize by-catch and

(b) to the extent by-catch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such by-catch.

10. Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human

life at sea.

Note: National Standards 8-10 were added in October 1996 via Public Law 104-297. National Standards 1-4 were inserted

via Public Law 98-623, which were amendments to the initial Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Public Law 94-265). It is also important to mention that via Public Law 97-453, section 301(b) Guidelines – the

Secretary of Commerce “shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on

the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans.” Adapted and modified from Darcy

and Matlock, (1999) and information from http://www .nefsc.noaa.gov/magact/mag3.html)

.
Page 40

Figure 1. Suggested requirements of an integrated large marine ecosystem (LME) management strategy as a part of the socio-economic and

governance modules in the LME approach, adopted and modified from von Zharen (1999 pp. 17-21). Regarding “partnering”

outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD; Johannesburg, 2002) Hens and Nath (2003, p. 7) discuss the

advent of Type II Partnerships culminating from that international symposium; these are “projects that allow civil society to

contribute to the implementation of sustainable development.” This corresponds to humans as an integral part of the marine

ecosystem (Sherman, 2005). “Partnerships have become state-of-the-art because of the confluence of two trends, namely the

increasing acceptance of the fundamental tenets of ecosystem management and the changing nature and scale of government”

(Michaels et al., 1999 p. 159). The WSSD Type II Partnerships articulated in the paper by Hens and Nath (2003 p. 32) are defined

“as a series of implementation partnerships and commitments involving many stakeholders ... [t]hese would help translate the

multilaterally negotiated and agreed outcomes into concrete actions by interested governments, international organizations and

major groups.” For our purposes, the “major groups” would include fishing vessel captains, operators, and their crew, fisherfolk

organizations, seafood processors and distributors, gear makers, fishery management councils in the U.S., etc. Masood et al., (1997

p. 108) reports that in the offshore Georges Bank area researchers there were among the first in the U.S. to involve fisherfolk in

scientific studies. A set of “guidelines” were developed for Type II Partnerships indicating that they should, inter alia, “be voluntary

in nature” and feature “integrated economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.” And, these partnerships should “have a system of accountability, including arrangements for monitoring progress” (Hens and Nath, 2003 p. 33).

Therefore, it is hypothesized here that “civil society” (major groups) can make project-wise contribution to the implementation of

sustainable development through an embrace of voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS) envisioned in the ISO 14001

VEMS framework or equivalent consensus-based paradigms (see also Duda, 2005; Connaughton, 2002a&b). A VEMS is not a

substitute for government commitments found in legislative mandates nor is it subject to negotiation (see e.g. Hens and Nath, 2003

pp. 32 & 33). Further, because implementation of sustainable development “is not a core activity of business or industry” (Hens and

Nath, 2003 p. 33), these authors also speculate that “scientists engaged in research on sustainable development have much to gain

from Type II Partnership networks.” Therefore by example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) “Broad Agency Announcement” for proposals addressing several research topics related to

Northeast U.S. fisheries (Northwest Atlantic Ocean) under the Cooperative Research Partners Initiative can be considered just such

a Type II Partnership as envisioned in Johannesburg in September 2002. For example, the “objectives of these projects are to

encourage cooperative research between fisheries managers, scientists, and industry members” (see: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/

statefedoff/coopresearch/baa4.htm ., Online Available June 18, 2005). The Cooperative Research Partners Program’s announcement for 2005 included “partnerships” research on inter alia, “topics relevant to ecosystem-based fisheries management” as well as

studies on the “socio-economic aspects of marine recreational and commercial fisheries in the Northeast” and to “develop and

implement strategies for enhancing safety at sea” (National Standard 10 of the U.S. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996; e.g. Table 7).

Another of the research topics in the 2005 solicitation involves “studies on fishing practices... or ways to reduce the bycatch of

groundfish (re: haddock) in the herring fishery.” It is this contemporary topic that is discussed in Appendix 1 to this manuscript as

a representative example of an industry based voluntary environmental management system ISO 14001 approach that encompasses

relevancy for “ecosystem-based fisheries management” as well.

Partnering to maximize 

the potential for 

achieving objectives

Commitment to an 

environmental valueadded marketplace

Joint collaboration for information 

dissemination based on the best 

scientific evidence available concerning 

marine ecosystems as well as 

environmental systems in general

Development of a marine life 

ecosystem clearinghouse 

linking expertise, programs, 

and resources The VEMS should have public 

and global support in order for 

comprehensive measures to 

improve these efforts, including 

support for international 

collaboration in LME scientific 

research

Agreement ought to be reached on 

policy guidance for an LME-VEMS 

to assist the strategic activities of 

major donor institutions such as The 

World Bank Global Environmental 

Facility (GEF) program

Policy ought to be based on an 

ethical foundation of shared 

values embracing international 

consciousness.

Suggested requirements of 

an integrated large marine 

ecosystem (LME) 

management strategy

The pace of transitioning 

from single species 

management to ecosystem 

approaches should quicken
Page 41

Figure 2. Depiction of the “Sainsbury” ISO 14001 fishery voluntary environmental management system (VEMS)

strategy framework for use in an LME. It comes under the socio-economic, governance, fish and fisheries 

as well as pollution and ecosystem health LME modules (see also Figure 11). Adapted and modified from

Sainsbury et al., (2000 p. 732); Sainsbury and Sumaila, (2003); see also: Quazi et. al., (2001 p. 527).

“Sainsbury” ISO 14001 fishery 

voluntary environmental 

management system (VEMS) 

strategy framework for use in a large 

marine ecosystem (LME)

Environmental improvement

through effectuating a “voluntary”

environmental management system 

(VEMS) at the fishing vessel, 

processing facility or fisheries 

organization level.

Planning for environmental 

aspects of the organization 

through an environmental 

policy that includes objectives 

and targets taking into accord legal and other fisherydependent requirements.

Implementation and operation II: Operation via document control, and 

emergency preparedness and response 

(e.g., in the directed herring fishery which 

has zero regulatory tolerance for haddock 

bycatch but as of June 13, 2005 has a 

1,000 lb. incidental take trip limit).

Checking and corrective action I: 

Monitoring and measurement for 

regulatory non-conformance -

taking proactive corrective and prevention steps.

Checking and corrective 

action II: Environmental 

management system (VEMS) audits and third- party certification.

Management review via an 

(environmental) performance evaluation

Implementation and operation I: 

Implementation via environmental 

management system (VEMS) 

documentation; communication; 

“crew” awareness, competence and 

training; management structure and 

responsibility.

Continual improvement via 

“double loop analysis” by 

the organization and by 

fishery managers
Page 42

Figure 3. Depiction of the “Sainsbury” ISO 14001 fishery voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) strategy

containing significant components of an ecosystem area management plan. It comes under the socio-economic,

governance, fish and fisheries as well as pollution and ecosystem health LME modules (see also Figure 11).

Adapted and modified from Sainsbury et al., (2000 p. 732); Sainsbury and Sumaila, (2003); see also: Quazi et al.,

(2001 p. 527), and information available from the Marine Aquarium Council headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii

(see http://macweb.inets.com) as cited in Shuman et al., (2004).

Geographical/ecological 

boundaries of the ecosystem 

area

Ownership and political boundaries of the 

ecosystem area

Basic annual catch data for the 

marine organisms collected or 

fished in the ecosystem area

Collection and fishing history of the ecosystem area

Listing of significant 

organisms neither collected nor fished in the 

ecosystem area

A process for monitoring the 

ecosystem area including the 

detection and reporting, to the 

appropriate legal authorities, of the use of destructive 

collection and fishing practices

Identification and listing of all 

stakeholders relevant to the 

ecosystem area

A process for ensuring no 

collection and fishing of 

unsuitable species i.e. slow 

growth to maturity, 

juveniles

“Sainsbury” ISO 14001 fishery 

voluntary environmental 

management system (VEMS): 

significant components of an 

ecosystem area management 

plan
Page 43

Figure 4. The depiction of a living marine resources ISO 14001 voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) for

utilization in a large marine ecosystem (LME) featuring “double loop analysis” as identified by Darnall (2001, p.

2); Quasi et. al.; (2001 p. 527); see also: Montabon et. al., (2000). Hormozi (1997 p. 35) states that these steps

comprise clauses 4.1 to 4.5 of ISO 14004, the guidance standard. A continuous process of learning may foster

conditions for strategic reorientations guided by adaptive management principles (see: Benezech et al., 2001 p.

1406).

Planning and 

Determination of 

Environmental 

Aspects

ISO 14001 Audit 

& Certification

Implementation 

and Operation of 

Organizational 

Action Plan

Monitoring & 

Evaluation of 

Targets for Corrective Action

Management 

Review of the 

Evaluation and 

Improvement

Environmental 

Policy and 

Commitment

Continual 

Improvement 

via “double loop 

analysis”

Begin
Page 44

Figure 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stance on (voluntary) environmental management systems (VEMS) and

ISO 14001, see Federal Register Vol. 63 (48), 1998, pp. 12094-12097; cited as EPA 1998a, see also EPA, (1998b);

and Johnson (2004).

U.S. EPA Position 

Statement on 

Environmental 

Management Systems and ISO 14001

Costs/Benefits to 

Implementing Facilities

Environmental 

Conditions

Stakeholder 

Participation and Confidence

see Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 48, 

1998, pp. 12094-

12097.

Environmental 

Performance

Compliance

Pollution 

Prevention
Page 45

Figure 6. A voluntary environmental management system is a part of an organization’s overall synoptic approach to

strategic business planning. As illustrated in the classic management cycle of planning, doing, checking/

correcting, and acting/improving, environmental management includes several steps in a continuous process

designed to improve an organization’s environmental “footprint” and operating conditions. Here, fisheries is

particularly noted, and the 10 National Standards found in the U.S. Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law No.

104-297) are particularly applicable (see Table 7). By example, the United Nations voluntary Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fishing could be utilized as a “best practice” in an international large marine ecosystem (LME)

setting where 90-95% of the world’s commercial catch of fisheries is harvested (see: Sherman, 2005). Source:

Adapted and modified from Begley (1996a p. 301a) The reader will note many similarities to the “Sainsbury” ISO

14001 VEMS approach depicted in Figure 2; see also Sainsbury et. al., (2000, p. 732). The cycle is also applicable

in a modified way for the regulators, e.g. New England Fishery Management Council, Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission and so forth. According to Darnall (2001 p. 2) the ISO 14001 is based on a 1931 model

towards achieving continuous improvement. The East Coast Pelagic Association (ECPA) of Camden, Maine is

cited as a representative example of a fisheries organization.

Environmental policy

Environmental aspects

Objectives and targets

Environmental management program

Legal (e.g. U.S. Sustainable Fisheries 

Act of 1996) and other requirements

Act/improve

Management review 

for performance 

evaluation (e.g. 

Executive Committee)

Do

Structure, assign responsibility

Provide training to “crew”

Communication for 

transparency

Environmental management 

documentation and control

Operational control

Emergency preparedness 

(and response) including, e.g. 

“safety at sea”

Check/correct

Monitoring/measurement

Nonconformance/corrective/ 

preventive action (e.g. bycatch 

and discards; highgrading)

Audits preferably by third party 

registrars for certification to ISO 

14001 VEMS

Records

Marine voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS): A continuous cycle

Vessel owners/captain; fisheries permit 

holder; processing facility; fisheries 

Plan organization e.g. “ECPA”

Continual 

improvement: 

Double-loop 

Analysis

Begin
Page 46

Figure 7. According to Klassen and McLaughlin (1996) the linkage of environmental management to firm profitability

encompasses market gains with cost savings. Strong environmental management systems coupled to organizational operations designed to minimize environmental impact(s) leads to improved (environmental) efficiency.

Together they provide improved financial performance. According to Christmann (2000 p. 666) “Firms that are

able to accumulate resources and capabilities that are rare, valuable, nonsubstitutable, and imperfectly imitable

will achieve an advantage over competitors.” In her study, she applied the resource-based view of the firm which

incorporated the concept of complementary assets “which are resources or capabilities that allow firms to

capture the profits associated with a strategy, technology or innovation.” An ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) strategy is just such an innovation. “In the context of environmental

strategies, complementary assets can be defined as assets that are required to gain competitive advantage from

the implementation of the best practices of environmental management” (Christmann, 2000 p. 666).

Prevention of environmental 

liabilities leads to avoided costs, 

penalties, and management time 

directed at regulatory remediation

Reduced time, material 

& energy consumption 

leads to greater 

productivity

Establishment of industrywide standards for 

technology & management 

practices leads to strong 

competitive positioning 

for lower costs

Market share gains leads to 

experienced based scale 

economies (“dedicated access 

privileges” for fisheries)

Environmental 

services, product 

or process 

certification

Higher services or 

product contribution 

margins

Linkage of environmental 

management to firm 

(organizational) 

profitability

Cost 

Savings: Savings:

Market 

Gains:
Page 47

Figure 8. According to Frid et al., (2005 p. 467) the standard fisheries-related methodology for environmental impact

assessments (EIA) is well developed and comprises several steps.

An assessment of the 

current environment 

and resources

Describe consequences of 

fishing activity, including both 

direct and indirect effects

Assess ‘significant 

effects’

Select and evaluate 

mitigation measures

Regulator decision on 

appropriate 

management action

Monitor and 

review

The standard fisheriesrelated methodology for 

environmental impact 

assessments is well 

developed and comprises 

several steps

There are many assessments 

of the value of various mitigation 

measures utilized to address the 

impacts of fishing on the 

ecosystem Continual 

Improvement 

via “double loop 

analysis”
Page 48

Figure 9. Conceptual process for integrating the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA’s) adaptive management

with a VEMS. Adapted and modified from Eccleston, (2003 p. 65); see also Boling, (2005). The processes noted

in the double-bounded ovals are typically performed under an adaptive management/NEPA concept whereas the

others are accomplished under a voluntary environmental management system (VEMS). There is considerable

overlap between NEPA’s intent and voluntary environmental management systems standards. The reader

should note that “integration” of provisions found in NEPA, EIA and VEMS is an on-going process; compare

with Figure 10 from Eccleston and Smythe (2002 p. 10).

Conceptual Process for 

Integrating NEPA’s Adaptive 

Management with a VEMS

Establish Environmental Policy

Planning Phase:NEPA and 

integrated environmental 

planning

Mitigation and decisionmaking: determine course of 

action; mitigate impacts as appropriate

Implement Plan: implement action, train personnel, and 

execute mitigation measures as appropriate

Monitor: review 

performance of 

policy/plan

Corrective Action: revise plan to correct deficiencies and 

improve environmental performance

Adapt: use VEMS continuous 

improvement loop 

(double loop analysis)

Predict: identify and analyze 

significant impact and 

mitigation measures; prepare 

emergency response and 

adaptive management plan
Page 49

Figure 10. A conceptual framework for integrating an environmental impact assessment (EIA) with a voluntary environmental management system (VEMS). Adapted and modified from Eccleston and Smythe (2002 p. 10).

Establish 

environmental policy

Planning phase: EIA process 

and integrated environmental 

planning 

Identify and analyze 

significant impacts: 

prepare emergency action 

and/or response plan

Decision making: 

determine course of 

action Implement plan: 

execute appropriate 

mitigation measures 

(train personnel)

Monitoring: review 

policy/plan 

performance

Corrective action: 

revisions for improving 

environmental 

performance 

Conceptual 

framework for 

integrating an EIA 

with VEMS

Continual 

Improvement 

via “double loop 

analysis”
Page 50

Figure 11. A five module LME strategy developed for assessing and analyzing ecosystem-wide changes in support of

improved adaptive management decision practices (adapted from Sherman, 1994; Sherman and Duda, 1999b; see

also Gable, 2005).

Pollution & ecosystem health

Encompassing eutrofication, biotoxins, 

pathology, emerging disease, health 

measures and indices, and resilience and 

stability

Productivity

Encompassing photosynthetic activity, 

zooplankton (bio) diversity, oceanographic 

variability, species composition, chlorophylla, primary production, and carrying capacity 

for supporting fish resources

Fish & fisheries

Encompassing biodiversity, finfish, 

shellfish, demersal, pelagic & anadromous 

species and sampling, trawl and acoustic 

surveys, and environmental shifts in 

climate regime

Socioeconomic

Encompassing anthropogenic forcing functions 

(e.g., fishing effort/vessel capacity), 

sustainability of long-term socioeconomic 

benefits, and integrated assessments

Governance

Encompassing holistic adaptive management 

procedures and techniques, and stakeholder 

participation and representation

A five module LME strategy 

developed for assessing and 

analyzing ecosystem-wide changes 

in support of improved adaptive 

management decision practices.
Page 51

Figure 12. Draft key elements of an ecosystem-oriented fisheries management approach for the Northeast United States

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) as a representative example, see Gable (2004 pp. 54 and 55 and

references cited therein) for elaboration at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm184/. Online

available November 23, 2004.

Definition(s) 

Objective(s)

Goals

Guidelines

Assumptions

Understanding

Draft key elements of an 

ecosystem-oriented fisheries 

management approach for the 

Northeast United States 

Continental Shelf LME

Science-based 

approach
Page 52

Figure 13. Good management practice in sustainable fisheries, according to The World Bank (2004), illustrates the importance of identifying the factors for success. Adapted and modified from the Support Unit for International

Fisheries and Aquatic Research (SIFAR) of The World Bank, April 2004, Policy Brief No. 2. See also Di Leva

(2004).

Creating appropriate incentives: 

encourage rational exploitation; 

develop use right systems that come 

in a wide variety of forms; defining 

fishing opportunities to match their 

fishing activity to the market.

Holistic approaches to fisheries 

management planning and stakeholder participation: fisheries from an 

ecosystem perspective are just one aspect of a bigger picture; multi-sectoral 

approaches to recognize the interests and impact of related sectors.

Dealing with complexity and change in fisheries management: complexity should be the catalyst for innovation to 

successfully manage fisheries requires flexible adaptation and learning. Cooperation in fisheries 

management: cooperation can be both horizontal (between fisherfolk) and vertical (fisherfolk, 

industry and the state) and can 

manifest itself through comanagement arrangements

Resource rent as a central concept in fisheries management: if 

resource rent is collected the 

fishery may be managed effectively... and fulfilling the 

social objectives of a fishery management plan

Policy framework(s): is made up of stated 

objectives and overall macro-economic 

goals of the government. Realistic policy 

frameworks for natural resources ought to 

identify clear goals and how and when 

they may be attained.

Institutional capacity: this approach to 

fisheries management emphasizes legislative 

frameworks, policy processes, mechanisms 

for cooperation, and institutions for research 

and information collection along with 

biology and economics

Reality of success in fisheries 

management: good 

management practice in 

sustainable fisheries
Page 53

Figure 14. Core principles for an ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management system (VEMS). “Environmental

policy is defined as the ‘statement by the organization of its intentions and principles in relation to its overall

environmental performances which provides a framework for action and for the setting of its environmental

objectives and targets’” (von Zharen, 1999, p. 12). For this manuscript, marine fisheries is the focus with a related

“environmental policy” articulated to the National Standards listed and described in the Sustainable Fisheries

Act of 1996 Public Law 104-297 (see Table 7). Themes expressed also pertain to international fisheries related

“voluntary” and negotiated agreements and treaties.

Core principles for an ISO 

14000 series voluntary 

environmental management 

system (VEMS)

Commitment to environmental 

management as one of the highest 

priorities and that should permeate 

the organization through all levels

Identification of legislative 

and regulatory requirements

Development of a management 

process for achieving objectives and targets

Appropriate financial and human 

resources to achieve objectives and targets

Assignment of clear procedures for 

accountability and responsibility

Establishment of a 

management review and audit 

process to identify areas for improvement

Development and maintenance 

of communication with internal 

and external interested 

(stakeholder) parties

Identification of 

environmental aspects 

associated with the 

organization’s activities, 

products, and services
Page 54

Figure 15. The ISO 14000 family of environmental-oriented standards are grouped around seven themes, adapted and

modified from Berthelot et al., (2003, p. 48; see also Montabon et al., (2000 p. 5). The subject of this manuscript

is centered on VEMS (ISO 14001 and 14004) as well as, to a lesser extent, eco-labeling (ISO 14020) in the marine

fisheries sector.

Voluntary 

Environmental 

Management 

Systems (VEMS)

Environmental 

Auditing 

(certification)

Assessment and 

Evaluation of 

Environmental 

Performance

Environmental 

labeling

Product/Services 

Life-cycle 

Assessment

Environmental Aspects 

in Product Design and 

Development

Terms and Definitions

The ISO 14000 

family of standards 

are grouped around 

seven themes
Page 55

Figure 16. Benefits and motivations associated with internationally recognized ISO 14001 certification, adapted and modified from Berthelot et. al., (2003, p. 49). Regarding adaptive management and environmental risk, a prominent

contemporary example is the situation of rebuilding year class 2003 stocks of haddock being inadvertently taken

as bycatch in the directed herring fishery in the New England region (see: Steele, 2005 pp. 30-32 available at http:/

/www.nefmc.org). The “risk” is closure of the herring fishery prior to the total allowable catch (TAC) being taken

because of regulatory zero tolerance of groundfish (haddock) bycatch. This “zero tolerance” was modified by a

recommendation of the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) at their March (Newport, Rhode

Island) scheduled meeting to request adaptive management “emergency action” of NOAA/NMFS. Emergency

action regulations were promulgated by NOAA/NMFS allowing for the suspension of prohibition on possession of haddock with an incidental catch allowance of 1,000 lb. per vessel, per trip (see: Federal Register Vol. 70

(112) June 13, 2005 pp. 34055-34060). A bycatch cap of 270,000 lbs. on the total amount of observed and reported

haddock of any size that could be landed under the haddock incidental possession allowance through December

10, 2005 was also enacted.

Improved Ability to 

Deal with 

Environmental Risk

Improvement of 

Production/Services 

Processes

Better Competitive 

Positioning (“Dedicated 

Access Privileges” for 

wild capture fisheries)

Improved Response to 

Pressures from the Public 

and Environmental Groups

Protection of the 

Organization, its Management 

and/or Shareholders in the 

Event of a Lawsuit

Enhanced 

Financing 

Opportunities

Benefits & motivations 

associated with internationally 

recognized ISO 14001 

certification

Cross-boundary 

Recognition in all Large 

Marine Ecosystems 

(LME)
Page 56

Figure 17. The adaptive management process according to Eccleston (2003 p. 60). “A model for adaptive management is

found in ISO 14001” (von Zharen, 1998 p. 101).

Predict: the standard NEPA 

process is used to plan actions 

and evaluate or “predict” the 

potential environmental 

consequences of a proposal.

Mitigate: as appropriate, alternatives 

and mitigation measures are considered 

for mitigating potential impacts

Implement: the decision maker 

chooses a course of action and 

the decision is implemented

Monitor: a monitoring program is adopted to 

review implementation of the proposal in order 

to ensure: applicable measures are effective; 

course of action is correctly implemented; 

deviations are identified and appropriately 

addressed and new information is identified and 

appropriately addressed

Adapt: adaptive management is an 

iterative process, actions can be adjusted 

to address new circumstances or additional 

information that was acquired through 

environmental monitoring

Adaptive Management 

Process: the adaptive 

management process 

contains five steps
Page 57

Figure 18. According to Frid et. al., (2005 p. 463) fishing activities influence marine ecosystems in a number of ways. The

challenge of ecosystem-based fisheries management is taking a sustainable level of the targeted species while

minimizing environmental and non-target populations alterations and food chain effects (Frid et al., 2005).

Direct removal of 

target species

Direct changes in the 

size structure of target 

populations

Alterations in nontarget populations of 

fish and the benthos

Alterations in the 

physical environment

Alterations in the 

chemical environment

Food chain effects 

such as trophic 

cascades

Fishing activities influence 

marine ecosystems in a 

number of ways

Altered predation 

pressure
Page 58

Figure 19. Some key decision points in an ISO 14000 series voluntary environmental management system (VEMS), adapted

and modified from Ritzert (2000, p. 69). The intent is for the entity to seek continuous improvement (via double

loop analysis).

Some Key Decision 

Points in an ISO 14000 

Series VEMS

Certification/Registration: Will the 

organization opt for third-party 

certification or formal selfdeclaration? Or only internal 

verification of the VEMS?

VEMS Scope: What 

defines the “organization” to which the VEMS 

applies? What are the limits?

Environmental Policy: Many decisions here - commitments, 

“appropriate” policy, communication, 

implementation.

Integration of Management 

Systems: Integration with health and safety, quality, 

other? To what degree?

Environmental Aspects & 

Impacts: Scope? Approach? 

Methodology? “Significance”? 

How to maintain the information?

Relevant Functions and 

Levels: Impact on objectives and targets; 

responsibilities; training; communication.

External Communication: 

Specific decision required, 

along with record of decision.

Procedures and Documentation: What approach to creation and use of procedures? What to document? How to document? 

How to control documents?

Management Review: How 

to evaluate VEMS for 

“suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness”?
Page 59

Figure 20. Based on scientific literature, and the stewardship experiences of Sissenwine and Mace (2003), an ecosystem

approach to a responsible fisheries management system ought to encompass the listed parameters. An ecosystem approach also needs to take into account environmental variability upon fisheries resources. Six of the

seven parameters of the fisheries ecosystem management system are also employed for single-species fisheries

management (Sissenwine and Mace, 2003). It should not be a surprise, in the similarity between single-species

fisheries management and ecosystem approaches.

Ecosystem-oriented approach for responsible fisheries 

management system

Ecosystem protection for habitat and 

vulnerable species

Participatory and 

transparent decision making

Efficient allocation 

of fishing rights

Management support 

for natural and social 

scientific information

Enforcement and 

performance evaluation including 

program monitoring

Goals, objectives and 

constraints including 

the human dimension

Precautionary and adaptive conservation of 

fisheries resources
Page 60

Figure 21. Reforms listed are essential to speed the transition to sustainable, well-managed, and ecologically sound fisheries according to Sutton (1998). They may be applicable in any large marine ecosystem (LME) setting.

Strengthen national, regional, 

and international capacity to 

manage marine fishes

Enact and implement recovery plans for 

depleted species. See, for example, 

Federal Register Vol. 70 (119) pp. 

36240-36259 June 22, 2005.

Reduce and eliminate the 

subsidies that sustain 

commercial fisheries

Accelerate programmes for 

decommissioning excess 

fishing fleet capacity

Expand programmes for retraining fisherfolk displaced by overfishing and effort limitation

Develop social and economic 

incentives for sustainable, wellmanaged fisheries

Focus management programmes on 

limiting effort and restricting access 

to fisheries “dedicated access 

privileges”

Reduce the footprint of 

northern fleets on fisheries 

in developing countries

Eliminate destructive fishing 

practices such as the use of 

poisons and explosives

Reduce and eliminate the 

bycatch of marine wildlife 

in commercial fisheries

Reforms listed are essential to 

speed the transition to 

sustainable, well-managed, and 

ecologically sound fisheries
Page 61

Figure 22. According to von Zharen (1998 pp. 107-108) effective ocean ecosystem stewardship is predicated on several

principles that are necessarily evolutionary in nature and by design.

It begins with the systematic application of a 

universal environmental management strategy, 

such as ISO 14000, that addresses the impacts 

of an organization’s activities, services, or 

products and one in which continual 

improvement is obligatory.

A global framework for effectuating 

stewardship of living marine species must be 

implemented that is adaptive and that centers 

on stakeholders’ interests, expansion of 

education, and global dissemination of 

relevant and bonafide “good faith”

information.

It demands a thoughtful 

analysis of how living 

marine species and the 

ocean’s ecosystem should 

be perceived.

Effective ocean ecosystem 

stewardship is predicated on 

several principles that are 

necessarily evolutionary in nature

The marine ecosystem is 

interconnected and interdependent and 

this necessitates switching from a 

single-species stewardship approach to 

a holistic one in which every living 

thing in the sea is considered.
Page 62

Figure 23. The role of institutions and policy in fostering the economics for sustainable development, market failures affect

resource use and management, adapted and modified from Veeman and Politylo, (2003 p. 322 & 323). These

authors argue that largely as a result of markets that fail to allocate resources efficiently among users over time

leads to excessive depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation.

Poorly defined or nonexistent property rights

Pervasive spillover effects or externalities that remain 

beyond the domain of markets

High transactions costs that 

discourage otherwise beneficial 

exchanges that would conserve 

resources and improve social welfare

Public goods characteristics of 

many environmental resources; 

the inability to exclude free 

riding and recover the cost of 

provision of such resources

Uncompetitive markets

Myopic planning horizons and high 

discount rates, which may arise through 

poverty, impatience, and risk or 

uncertainty affecting individuals but not 

society wholly

Unpriced resources and 

absent or thin markets

Uncertainty and risk aversion 

(environmental and market 

uncertainties and the inability of 

economic agents to address risk; 

i.e., diversification, insurance, etc.) Irreversibility (market decisions are 

made with incomplete information 

about future developments and 

therefore may fail to allocate 

resources properly)

Role of institutions and policy 

in fostering the economics for 

sustainable development
Page 63

Figure 24. Dobson et al., (2005 p. 488) refer to “human dimensions” “as the study and practice of human values related to

natural resources, how those values impact and are manifested in management, and how humans affect or are

affected by natural resources management decisions” (see also: Hennessey and Sutinen, 2005). “Challenges of

integrating ecological and human dimensions of management remain as important today as they were forty years

ago” (Dobson et al., 2005 p. 487). “The human dimension is an important part of fishing and seafood industries”

(Kaplan and McCay, 2004 p. 258). It is also of note that according to Daily et al., (2000 p. 396) “in a democratic

society, values used in social decision-making ought to be derived from those held by its individual citizens and

ought not be imposed by the state.” The figure illustrates a new social science-oriented research theme that

incorporate human dimensions of fisheries management in large marine ecosystems, adapted and modified from

Dobson et al., (2005) and Hennessey and Sutinen, (2005).

The human dimensions 

of fishery management 

necessarily include: 

Cultural values 

Social values

Economic values

Individual and social behavior Demographics

Legal and organizational 

frameworks of management

Communication

Education and training

Citizen (stakeholder) 

participation Decision-making 

processes
Page 64

Figure 25. Included within the socio-economic module of the large marine ecosystem (LME) approach to fisheries management and sustainability are prospective improvements in decision-making that will aid managers to address a

variety of related tasks, adapted and modified from Dobson et al., (2005 p. 489); see also Hennessey and Sutinen,

(2005) and Hennessey, (2005).

Sustainable strategies for 

improvements in ecosystemoriented decision-making 

include:

Clarifying agency 

management objectives 

Developing appropriate 

performance measures 

(indicators)

Identifying the consequences 

of management alternatives

Recognizing prospective 

key tradeoffs 

Consulting effectively with 

external stakeholders as part of 

“co-management” joint decisionmaking initiatives
Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

For all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific

review, but not necessarily external scientific review. For most

issues, the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS's

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Professional Paper

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series

if: 1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC's mission; 2) the

manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director's

approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC's Research Communications Branch account from another federal account. For all

manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published

in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the

manuscripts' contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 ("Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication") of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific

manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works contains

all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial

titles in such lists, use the guidance of the International Standards

Organization; such guidance is easily accessed through the various

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts’ serials source lists (see http://

www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/JAS.htm). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada,

use Special Publications No. 29 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17

(decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda,

MD). For spelling of scientific and common names of marine

mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the Society for Marine

Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of

the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G.&C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables, and

figure captions should be converted to Word. In general, keep text

simple (e.g., don't switch fonts and type sizes, don't use hard

returns within paragraphs, don't indent except to begin paragraphs).

Also, don't use an automatic footnoting function; all notes should

be indicated in the text by simple numerical superscripts, and listed

together in an "Endnotes" section prior to the "References Cited"

section. Especially, don't use a graphics function for embedding

tables and figures in text.

Tables should be prepared with a table formatting function.

Each figure should be supplied both on paper and on disk, unless

there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under extraordinary

circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: "Introduction," "Study

Area," "Methods & Materials," "Results," "Discussion" and/

or "Conclusions," "Acknowledgments," and "References Cited."

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Operations, Management & Information Division

Research Communications Branch

Editorial Office

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one disk copy, and original figures (if applicable).

NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off "NEFSC

Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form." Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign a

"Release of Copyright" form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to: Editorial

Office, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water

Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources

for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health

of their environment." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science

Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living

marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of these

resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use." Results of NEFSC

research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals).

However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC occasionally

releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of longterm field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall

assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of

important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies.

All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports

on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected abstracts of,

and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review, but no technical

or copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen's Report) -- This information report is a quick-turnaround report on the distribution

and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys of the

Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Resource Survey Report, either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods

Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on "Reports and Publications" (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL