Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs
Published: 2006-02-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs are one tool the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses to help end overfishing and promote conservation. Under a DAP program, NMFS sets an allowable catch in a fishery and allocates the privilege to harvest a portion of the total to eligible entities, such as fishermen. Because DAP programs can have significant impacts on fishermen and their communities, many believe that effective participation by fishermen and other stakeholders in the development of these programs is critical. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery management councils are using a framework for effective participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in developing DAP programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The fishery management councils that GAO reviewed lack key elements of an effective stakeholder participation framework and therefore may be missing opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in the DAP program development process. Based on GAO's review of the literature and the experience of leading federal agencies in stakeholder participation, such a framework should include a strategic implementation approach that embodies a set of core principles, such as making key information readily available and understandable and fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers. However, fisheries stakeholders identified several areas where council practices do not fully adhere to the core principles GAO identified. For example, while the councils make DAP-related information available to stakeholders, this information is not always presented in an easily understandable way. Also, while stakeholders can testify at council meetings, according to participation experts, this one-way communication is not an effective way to share information because it does not lead to a dialogue between stakeholders and decision makers. Unlike other federal agencies, NMFS has neither developed a formal stakeholder participation policy nor provided the councils with guidance or training on how to develop and use a strategic approach to enhance stakeholder participation. While not legally required to do so, if NMFS adopted such an approach it could help ensure, among other things, that all relevant stakeholders are identified, specific participation goals are defined, and participation plans are implemented by the councils developing DAP programs. Methods suggested by stakeholders and participation experts that could enhance stakeholder participation in the DAP program development process principally fall into five categories: (1) providing education and outreach; (2) holding meetings using different times, locations, and formats; (3) streamlining the DAP program development process; (4) diversifying interests represented in the council process; and (5) sharing decision-making authority. While using these methods can result in more effective participation, particularly when they are employed as part of a participation plan, these methods can also have certain disadvantages, such as increased costs. For example, the Marine Resource Education Project (MREP), which is sponsored by a group of universities in New England, offers several examples of promising practices. MREP provides stakeholders with training on fisheries management and science to help them better understand the council process and DAP issues, teaches the importance of being involved early and throughout the process, and provides diverse stakeholders with the opportunity to exchange information in informal settings. However, such training can be costly and may reach relatively few stakeholders.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Overfishing is a problem with far-reaching environmental and economic  consequences. When a fishery—one or more stocks of fish within a  geographic area—cannot be sustained because of overfishing, the marine  ecosystem in which those stocks live can be harmed, and fishermen and  their communities can experience economic hardship. The National Marine  Fisheries Service (NMFS), a component of the Department of Commerce’s  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has several  management tools available to help end overfishing and promote  conservation, including dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs. Under  a DAP program, NMFS sets a total allowable catch in a particular fishery  and then allocates quota—the privilege to harvest a specified portion of the  total catch allowed for the fishery—to eligible entities, such as fishermen,  communities, and fishery cooperatives. DAP programs have achieved  several desired benefits, such as helping to stabilize fisheries. However,  these programs have also raised concerns about such issues as the equity  of quota allocation decisions. Moreover, because of the potential for DAP  programs to have significant impacts on fishermen, fishing communities,  and the environment, among other things, many believe that effective  participation by fishermen and other stakeholders in the development of  these programs is critical. Yet, some believe that effective participation  may not be occurring.
In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act  established the process for managing marine fisheries in the United States.  Under the act, eight regional fishery management councils are responsible  for developing fishery management plans, including DAP programs and  other plans for managing fisheries in federal waters. The councils are  composed primarily of federal and state fishery management officials and  individuals selected by the Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted by  the governors of the states in the councils’ regions. The Secretary is  required, to the extent practicable, to select council members in such a way  as to ensure a fair and balanced representation of the active participants in  the commercial and recreational fisheries under the jurisdiction of the  councils. Each council establishes advisory committees to provide  information and recommendations to the council on the development of  DAP programs and other fishery management plans, amendments, and  regulations.
To provide for stakeholder participation in developing fishery management  plans, such as DAP programs, each council must hold open meetings that  are widely publicized; make available council-generated information, such  as detailed minutes of council and committee meetings; and allow  interested individuals and groups to provide oral or written comments  regarding agenda items. Once a council prepares a DAP plan and drafts  regulations to implement the plan, the council submits the plan and  regulations to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. The Secretary  reviews the plan and proposed regulations for consistency with national  standards and applicable law, and immediately publishes notice of the  plan’s availability for comment. The Secretary also publishes the  regulations for public comment after reviewing them for consistency with  the plan and applicable law. Once the comment period closes, the Secretary  may then approve the plan and promulgate final regulations, disapprove  the plan, or partially approve the plan; recommended changes are provided  to the council if the plan is not approved. Both NMFS and the councils have  responsibility for implementing and monitoring approved DAP programs  and proposing any changes. According to participation experts, effective  stakeholder participation may require agencies to go beyond the legal  requirements for formalized participation and use a more open, responsive,  informal, and collaborative approach to participation. Based on our review  of the literature and the experience of leading federal agencies in  stakeholder participation, adopting a participation framework is an  effective way to guide the development and implementation of this type of  approach. Such a framework includes core principles that provide a  foundation for an agency’s stakeholder participation efforts and a strategic  approach to implementing them.
This is the fourth in a series of requested reports on individual fishing quota  (IFQ) and other DAP programs. In December 2002, we reported on the  extent of consolidation of quota holdings, the extent of foreign holdings of  quota, and the economic effect of IFQ programs on seafood processors. In  February 2004, we reported on methods available for protecting the  economic viability of fishing communities and facilitating new entry into  IFQ fisheries, key issues facing fishery managers in protecting  communities and facilitating new entry, and the comparative advantages  and disadvantages of the IFQ system and the fishery cooperative  approach. In March 2005, we reported on the costs of managing IFQ  programs and how these costs differ from pre-IFQ management costs, the  IFQ management costs being recovered by NMFS, and ways to share the  costs of IFQ programs between government and industry. For this report,  you asked us to determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery  management councils are using a framework for effective stakeholder  participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts  suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP  programs.
To conduct this review, we reviewed the activities and attended meetings of  four regional fishery management councils: the Gulf of Mexico, New  England, North Pacific, and Pacific councils. We selected these councils to  obtain broad geographic coverage of councils where DAP programs were  being developed. At the council meetings and elsewhere, we interviewed  DAP program stakeholders, including commercial vessel owners, captains,  and crew; recreational fishermen; fish dealers and processors;  environmentalists; fishing community representatives; and state and  federal fishery managers. In addition, we surveyed the members of the four  fishery management councils whose meetings we attended to obtain their  views regarding stakeholder participation, including both obstacles and  potential methods for enhancing participation. We also interviewed  participation experts and federal agency officials on public participation  theory and practice. See appendix I for additional details on our scope and  methodology and appendix II for the fishery management council survey  results. We conducted our review from March through November 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Public participation in federal agency decision making has evolved over the  past 60 years. The Administrative Procedure Act, enacted in 1946, created a  legal basis for public participation by requiring agencies to hold public  comment periods for proposed rules. In 1969, the enactment of NEPA  provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the environmental  impacts of certain proposed federal actions. NEPA requires federal  agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement for any  major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human  environment, as well as an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action.  The agency must take this information to the public and provide  opportunities for the public to comment before a decision is reached. In  1993, Executive Order 12866 was issued to reform the regulatory process  by, among other things, making the process more accessible and open to  the public. Specifically, the order directs federal agencies to seek the  involvement of those who are intended to benefit from and those expected  to be burdened by any regulation before issuing a notice of proposed  rulemaking, and to give the public an opportunity to comment on any  proposed regulation.
In 1976 the Magnuson-Stevens Act institutionalized regional decision  making in which stakeholders play a key role. Specifically, the act  established eight regional councils responsible for developing DAP and  other fishery management plans: the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South  Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Pacific, North Pacific, and Western  Pacific councils. One of the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to  ensure that the councils prepare, monitor, and revise these plans under  circumstances that will enable the states, the fishing industry, consumer  and environmental organizations, and other interested parties to  participate in and advise on the establishment and administration of the  plans. To this end, the act provides many opportunities for stakeholder  participation in developing fishery management plans. Stakeholders can  attend open meetings, provide oral and written comments regarding DAP  issues before the council, and serve (or be represented) on the councils or  advisory committees that make recommendations to the councils.  Programs developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act must also meet the  requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, and other laws  governing fisheries management. NMFS prepares operational guidelines to  assist the councils in developing practices and procedures, consistent with  these laws, for developing, reviewing, and implementing fishery  management plans.
There are several different types of DAPs:  IFQs allow eligible entities, such as vessel owners or fishermen, to catch  a specified portion of the total catch allowed. When the assigned  portions can be sold or transferred, they are called individual  transferable quotas.
Community quotas grant a specified portion of the total catch allowed to  a community. The community then decides how to allocate the catch.
Fishing cooperatives divide all or part of the available quota among  fishing and/or processing entities by means of contractual agreements.
Area-based quotas give an individual or group dedicated access to the  fish within a specific area of the ocean.
At the time of our review, NMFS had implemented nine DAP programs for  fisheries under the management authority of the regional councils: the Mid- Atlantic surfclam/ocean quahog IFQ program in 1990, the South Atlantic  wreckfish (snapper-grouper complex) IFQ program in 1992, the Western  Alaska Community Development Quota Program in 1992, the Alaskan  halibut and sablefish (black cod) IFQ program in 1995, the Whiting  Conservation Cooperative in 1997, the Bering Sea pollock cooperative  authorized by the American Fisheries Act in 1998, the Pacific sablefish  permit stacking program in 2002, the Georges Bank cod hook sector  allocation program in 2004, and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab  rationalization program authorized by Congress in 2004. See appendix III  for descriptions of these programs. In addition, NMFS had implemented a  tenth DAP program for the Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seine fishery, which  the Secretary of Commerce established and now manages. Finally, at the  time of our review, DAP programs were being developed for the following  fisheries: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish (trawl  catcher-processor), Gulf of Alaska groundfish, Gulf of Alaska rockfish, Gulf  of Mexico red snapper, Mid-Atlantic tilefish, Georges Bank cod (gillnet),  and Pacific groundfish (trawl).
section_title: Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development Process
paragraphs: An effective stakeholder participation framework encompasses a set of  core principles and a strategic implementation approach. However, the  current practices of the fishery management councils we reviewed do not  fully reflect such core principles or include an implementation strategy.  While the DAP program development process provides many opportunities  for stakeholder participation, stakeholders identified several areas where  the councils have not addressed obstacles to participation faced by some  stakeholders, particularly crew members.
subsections: section_title: Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Do Not Fully Adhere to Core Participation Principles
paragraphs: Our review of the participation literature and policies from leading federal  agencies in stakeholder participation identified the following core  principles for effective stakeholder participation, some of which may  overlap when put into practice:  using an open and clearly defined decision-making process;   making key information readily available and understandable;  actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input;  involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making   fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders   using formal and informal participation methods; and  including all stakeholder interests.
While the DAP program development process used by the fishery  management councils provides many opportunities for stakeholder  participation, stakeholders with whom we spoke and council members  who responded to our survey identified several areas where current  practices do not fully adhere to the core principles for effective  participation.
Using an open and clearly defined decision-making process. Adhering  to this principle means that an organization makes program  development processes open and accessible to all interested  stakeholders, and that the organization has informed stakeholders about  what roles they can play and how the organization uses stakeholder  input, such as oral statements provided at council meetings, in decision  making. Using a transparent process gives stakeholders clear  expectations about how decisions will be made, enhancing  understanding and trust in the organization’s decisions. While the  councils we reviewed use an open decision-making process and inform  stakeholders how they can participate, they do not always make clear  how they use stakeholder input in decision making. Specifically, the  councils hold open meetings where any stakeholder can provide oral or  written statements on DAP agenda items. Also, each council has  prepared a Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures that  provides information on council operations and how stakeholders can  participate in developing fishery management plans, such as DAP  programs. Further, the councils we reviewed make information  available at council meetings on how to participate. In addition, the  Pacific Council has prepared a guide on how to get involved in the  council process, which is available on its Web site, as well as at council  meetings. Nonetheless, stakeholders told us that it takes time to  understand the process. As a result, some stakeholders, particularly  those who are new to the process or who are not members of a  stakeholder organization, do not understand which meetings to attend  and the appropriate times to submit information on DAP proposals.  Finally, while all council members who responded to our survey said  that they use stakeholder input in making decisions, they do not always  provide explanations of how stakeholder input was used. For example,  stakeholders told us that when a council votes immediately after public  comment, it is not always clear that their input was considered,  particularly when the council’s decision does not reflect the views  expressed in public comment. In addition, council meeting minutes do  not always address issues raised by stakeholders or explain how their  input was used in making decisions.
Making key information readily available and understandable. This  core principle helps ensure that stakeholders have access to  information, such as analyses of DAP proposals, and that the  information is understandable to them so that they can participate in a  meaningful way during the program development process. While all the  councils we reviewed make key information on DAP program  development readily available to stakeholders, this technical  information is not always presented in an easily understandable way.  Specifically, the councils make program documents, such as draft DAP  planning documents and analyses, available on their Web sites and at  council meetings. The councils also send these documents to those who  request them. However, stakeholders told us that the documents often  use technical language to present complex issues, making them difficult  to understand. Stakeholders also told us that documents can be lengthy  and repetitive, making them time-consuming to read. For example, the  environmental impact statement for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands  crab rationalization program, required under NEPA, was more than  2,300 pages long. When key information is difficult to understand and  time-consuming to read, some stakeholders said that they have difficulty  becoming knowledgeable about the issues, which, according to  participation experts, can limit stakeholders’ ability to participate in a  meaningful way.
Actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input.
Adhering to this principle means that decision makers seek out those  potentially affected by a decision and request input, paying particular  attention to stakeholder groups that have traditionally been less  involved. The councils we reviewed conduct some outreach and solicit  stakeholder input. For example, the councils we reviewed place notices  in the Federal Register and distribute notices to the media to announce  public meetings as required by law, maintain mailing lists of people  interested in receiving council-generated information, prepare and  distribute newsletters to people on their mailing lists, and send  representatives to fishing conferences, expositions, and forums. In  addition to conducting outreach, the councils also solicit stakeholder  input on the potential effects of specific DAP program alternatives by  holding meetings at various locations where stakeholders can submit  oral and written statements. However, at the four councils we reviewed,  we found only limited efforts by the councils to provide targeted  outreach to, or seek input from, stakeholders who do not typically  participate in the council process, such as crew members. This may  explain, in part, why stakeholders told us that some stakeholders, such  as crew members and others who may be affected by DAP decisions, do  not participate or participate too late in the process to provide  meaningful input. Over 60 percent of the council members who  responded to our survey believe that expanding public outreach  activities would be effective in improving stakeholder participation in  developing DAP programs. Some council members noted, however, that  stakeholders also have a responsibility to seek out information about  DAP issues and use the available opportunities to participate in the  development process.
Involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making  process. According to participation experts and our prior work,  involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making  process can help ensure that stakeholders provide input early enough  for the input to be useful and often enough so that stakeholders are  involved in the smaller decisions that lead to a final decision. Although  the councils follow the stakeholder participation requirements provided  by law, the length of the DAP program development process and the  costs of attending meetings make it difficult for some stakeholders to be  involved early and throughout the process. Specifically, stakeholders  can participate in the process by providing oral and written input to the  council and its advisory committees on DAP agenda items at public  hearings and meetings, and by serving on the council or advisory  committees that make recommendations to the council. However, many  stakeholders told us that the length of the process, which can take  several years, was a significant obstacle to participation. In addition to  the length of the process, the costs associated with travel and time away  from work make it difficult for some stakeholders to attend meetings  and stay involved. Stakeholders told us that this situation is particularly  problematic for those who are not members of organizations or do not  have representatives to attend meetings, gather information, and  provide input on their behalf.
Fostering responsive, interactive communication between  stakeholders and decision makers. This core principle promotes  understanding between stakeholders and decision makers. While the  councils communicate with stakeholders, they do not always do so in a  responsive, interactive way. Stakeholders can provide input to the  councils by testifying at council meetings (see fig. 1) and by submitting  written comments. At the councils we visited, testimony is given at  designated times during the council meetings, with one speaker  following another. Council members may ask clarifying questions at the  completion of each statement, but they do not always do so. According  to participation experts, serial testimony is not an effective way to  communicate, because it does not lead to a dialogue between  stakeholders and decision makers. Further, some stakeholders told us  that they find it intimidating to deliver public testimony before the  council, which may require speaking before as many as 21 council  members and 200 people in the audience.
In addition, stakeholders told us that when they submit written  comments, which become part of the official record, councils do not  consistently respond to these comments. When a council does not  respond to oral or written comments, it loses an opportunity to foster  interactive communication and stakeholders question how their input  was used.
Using formal and informal participation methods. Formal  information exchanges—such as written council responses to  stakeholder input on proposed DAP plans—help ensure that  information (e.g. the rationale for DAP decisions) is available to all,  regardless of one’s ability to attend meetings. Informal methods, such as  open houses where agency officials can share information and hear  stakeholder concerns, can give stakeholders and decision makers the  opportunity to interact and share views on DAP issues. While the  councils we reviewed provide stakeholders with formal opportunities to  participate in developing DAP programs, they offer few informal  opportunities that are open to all stakeholders. Specifically, while all  stakeholders can formally participate in developing DAP programs by  attending meetings and submitting oral and written comments,  according to participation experts, these formal participation methods  are not always conducive to interactive communication between  stakeholders and decision makers. Moreover, stakeholders told us that  they would like more opportunities for informal interactions. All four of  the councils we reviewed provide contact information for council  members and staff on their Web sites, and stakeholders told us that  council staff are available and helpful to people who contact them.  However, our review of council practices showed that the councils  provide few organized opportunities for all stakeholders to informally  discuss issues.
Including all stakeholder interests. Including all stakeholder interests  helps ensure that all viewpoints are considered in developing DAP  programs and is crucial to perceptions of fairness. One of the purposes  of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to ensure that councils prepare plans in  ways that enable stakeholders to participate, but some stakeholder  groups may not be adequately represented. For example, 60 percent of  the council members who responded to our survey believed that crew  members were poorly represented or not represented at all in the DAP  program development process. Further, while stakeholders serve on the  council or on advisory committees that make recommendations  regarding DAP proposals to the council, some stakeholders are  concerned that not all stakeholder interests are adequately represented  on the councils and their advisory committees. Regarding  representation on the councils, the Secretary of Commerce is required  to select council members in such a way as to ensure a fair and balanced  representation of the active participants in the commercial and  recreational fisheries under the council’s jurisdiction. However, among  the commercial representatives on the Pacific Fishery Management  Council, there are no active commercial fishermen; similarly, there are  no active crew members on the four councils we reviewed. Moreover,  the Secretary is not required to balance any other stakeholder interests,  such as environmentalist or consumer interests, and many stakeholders  (including some council members we surveyed) believe that the  councils are not representative of all interests. In addition, some  stakeholders told us that they believe the composition of the advisory  committees, whose members are selected by the councils, is not always  adequately representative. Finally, when stakeholders bypass the  council process to get a DAP program approved, all interests may not be  included. For example, in some cases, stakeholders have taken DAP  proposals directly to the Congress for legislative approval rather than  using the council process. While some stakeholders expressed concern  that involving more people will increase the amount of time and effort  needed to make decisions, others noted that including all stakeholders’  interests can help agencies avoid controversy once decisions are made.
section_title: Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Are Not Based on a Strategic Approach
paragraphs: According to participation experts and government officials, using a  strategic approach to participation that is based on core principles is the  second key element of an effective participation framework. Although the  specifics of a strategic approach to stakeholder participation should be  tailored to each situation, it should generally include identifying all key  stakeholders, defining specific participation goals, creating a participation  plan, implementing the plan, evaluating the results, and making  adjustments as necessary. (See fig. 2.)
Identifying stakeholders involves systematically considering which internal  and external parties may be affected by or interested in a decision. In the  case of DAP decisions, for example, stakeholders may include a wide range  of interests, such as vessel owners, captains, and crew members;  processors; fishing-dependent communities; recreational fishermen;  environmentalists; federal and state fishery managers; consumers; and  members of the public. Once managers identify stakeholders, they should  then define specific goals for involving those stakeholders, such as having  stakeholders help design a solution to a particular problem or gaining their  support for agency decisions. The next step—creating a participation  plan—outlines the methods managers will use to involve stakeholders.  Once a plan is implemented, evaluating the results can help agencies  determine what is working—and what is not—and make adjustments as  necessary to improve participation. To increase the chances of success,  participation experts suggest that managers involve stakeholders in these  participation planning, execution, and evaluation efforts.
Adhering to a set of core principles and using a strategic implementation  approach can enhance participation, which can benefit agencies and  stakeholders by increasing stakeholders’ perceptions of fairness, helping  diffuse potentially controversial issues, minimizing overall costs and delays  in developing programs, and generally developing better decisions.  However, if participation efforts are not executed well, they can undermine  stakeholders’ trust in the process and decrease the credibility of decisions.  To minimize this risk, participation experts told us that agency  commitment is key. This commitment can be exemplified by adopting a  formal stakeholder participation policy that expresses core principles, and  providing guidance and training on how to develop and use a strategic  approach to stakeholder participation. Such policies, guidance, and  training can help managers better understand what is expected of them  regarding stakeholder participation and help them strategically plan and  execute participation efforts.
NMFS is not legally required to develop a formal policy on stakeholder  participation or provide the councils with guidance and training on how to  develop and implement a participation framework, and it has not done so.  Moreover, the councils themselves have not developed strategic  approaches that define their specific participation goals or include  participation plans, and therefore may be missing opportunities to make  stakeholder participation in the DAP process more effective. However,  without NMFS’s leadership and commitment, it may be difficult for the  councils to enhance stakeholder participation in developing DAP  programs.
Two federal government agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE)—are recognized by  participation experts as leaders in establishing effective stakeholder  participation frameworks. Both agencies have (1) established policies that  define their core participation principles, such as fostering openness  between the agencies and their stakeholders, and (2) provided guidance to  program managers on using a strategic approach to stakeholder  participation. EPA’s public involvement policy articulates participation  principles, such as ensuring that the public has timely, accessible, and  accurate information about EPA programs so that stakeholders have the  knowledge they need to participate. For example, EPA provides  information on its Web site for planning and conducting public involvement  activities. EPA also provides a participation strategy that directs agency  officials to take specific steps, such as planning and budgeting for public  involvement activities, systematically identifying stakeholders, and  evaluating public participation activities. Further, EPA provides guidance,  training, and resources to implement its policy. Similarly, DOE has  established participation principles, such as using open, ongoing, formal  and informal two-way communication between DOE and its stakeholders,  and provides guidance to managers on how to plan and implement effective  participation efforts. DOE also publishes evaluations of past efforts, which  managers can learn from as they devise strategies appropriate for their  specific situation.
section_title: Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of Methods for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation
paragraphs: According to stakeholders and participation experts, a variety of methods  are available that, depending on the situation, could enhance stakeholder  participation in developing DAP programs. These methods generally fall  into five categories: (1) providing education and outreach, (2) holding  meetings in different ways, (3) streamlining the DAP program development  process, (4) diversifying interests represented in the council process, and  (5) sharing decision-making authority. While strategic use of these methods  can result in more effective participation, they can also have disadvantages,  such as increased costs.
Providing education and outreach. Stakeholders and participation experts  suggested several ways to conduct education and outreach activities that  encourage stakeholders to participate in the DAP program development  process and help give stakeholders the substantive and procedural  information they need to participate effectively. These approaches include  implementing formal training programs, conducting outreach activities in  locations likely to be affected by DAP programs, expanding council mailing  lists to include more stakeholders, making DAP program documents more  easily understandable to non-experts, and making greater use of  technology.
Implement formal training programs. Stakeholders said that they  would like more training on fishery management and science. NMFS  currently offers two days of training to new council members on the  fishery management process and hopes to expand its efforts by  providing ongoing training on other fishery management issues.  Stakeholders identified the Marine Resource Education Project  (MREP), which is sponsored by a group of universities in New England,  as an example of a good training program. MREP provides stakeholders  with intensive training on fisheries management and science to help  them better understand the council process and DAP issues, teaches the  importance of being involved early and throughout the process, and  provides diverse stakeholders with the opportunity to exchange  information in informal settings. However, such training can be costly  and may reach relatively few stakeholders.
Conduct outreach activities in locations likely to be affected by DAP  programs. Stakeholders said that they would like council members or  staff to meet with them in their communities, such as port towns or  communities likely to be affected by DAP programs, instead of making  participants travel to council meetings. While this method could  increase stakeholder understanding of complex issues (such as DAP  programs), bring more stakeholders into the process, and foster  interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers,  it may also require a high level of council resources.
Expand council mailing lists to include more stakeholders. Councils  could proactively expand their mailing lists, which currently are largely  composed of stakeholders who have attended meetings or who have  contacted the council and requested that their name be added. For  example, when people apply for fishing permits, permitting agencies  could request to add their contact information to the appropriate  council mailing list. While this method would make council-generated  information, including information on DAP program development,  available to more stakeholders, councils may still have difficulty  obtaining contact information for some stakeholders.
Make DAP program documents more understandable. Stakeholders  suggested that councils simplify their documents or provide additional  documents for those with less technical backgrounds. One way to  simplify documents is to make them shorter. For example, the  regulations governing the creation of environmental impact statements  state that the text of even unusually complex documents should  normally be less than 300 pages. NMFS has recently issued draft  guidelines that encourage councils to create clear and concise  documentation that stakeholders can easily understand. Additionally,  councils could create short summary documents that explain key issues  in plain language. For example, the Pacific Council issues short fact  sheets on a variety of fishery management issues. Simplifying  documents would make information easier to understand; however, it  could require additional council resources.
Make greater use of technology. Stakeholders have suggested making  greater use of technology, such as e-mail and Web sites, in providing  education and outreach on DAP issues. For example, EPA’s Web site for  hazardous waste cleanup activities offers easy access to a range of  material, from introductory information explaining key issues to non- experts, to technical information for people with high levels of  expertise. Participation experts say that using such technology can  enhance communication of important information, give stakeholders a  more immediate sense of connection to the process, and reach more  people at a lower cost. However, some stakeholders may not use or have  access to the technology being used.
Holding meetings in different ways. To increase meeting attendance and  allow for more informal, deliberative interaction, stakeholders suggested  holding meetings at different times or locations, broadcasting meetings,  holding informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues, and using  facilitators to run meetings.
Hold meetings at different times or locations. Some stakeholders  requested that council meetings take place at more convenient times or  in locations that were easier to reach. For example, one advisory  committee member in the Gulf Council said that the committee  successfully increased attendance by scheduling meetings in ports at  times convenient to fishermen. While holding meetings at different  times or places would allow for additional input from those who might  not otherwise be able to attend, it may increase convenience for only  some stakeholders, while inconveniencing others.
Broadcast meetings. Stakeholders and experts said that broadcasting  meetings using technology, such as the telephone, television, or the  Internet, could be one way to increase meeting attendance. For  example, during public hearings on developing the halibut and sablefish  IFQ program, the North Pacific Council used conference calls to  broadcast meetings, giving stakeholders in remote locations the  opportunity to learn about and provide input on IFQ program options.  While broadcasting meetings could increase meeting attendance, it may  not entirely replace the value of direct contact through face-to-face  meetings.
Hold informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues.
Stakeholders with whom we spoke requested opportunities for informal  discussions. Participation experts noted that this type of  communication is often key to ensuring stakeholder satisfaction with  involvement efforts, because such interactions can help break down  barriers between people and allow stakeholders to learn from one  another. There are several options for conducting such discussions. For  example, in 2003, NMFS held eight regional “constituent sessions” to  gather the views of marine resources stakeholders on issues facing each  region’s fisheries. While these sessions were not directly related to DAP  program development, NMFS officials said that they were valuable  because they provided the agency with a general sense of stakeholders’  concerns. Another option is to sponsor informal interactions, such as  roundtable meetings, where agency officials and stakeholders can meet  and talk about issues of interest. A DOE official said that seating  officials among stakeholders in a roundtable setting has helped her  agency break down barriers between these two groups. Further, the  Pacific Council’s state representatives hold open and informal meetings  with their constituents on days when the council is in session. Through  these meetings, council members make information readily available to  stakeholders and foster responsive, interactive communication. One  disadvantage of these meetings, though, is that they are accessible only  to people who are able to attend the council meeting.
Use facilitators to run meetings. Participation experts and some  stakeholders suggested using neutral facilitators to run meetings.  According to participation experts, neutral facilitators can ensure that  issues are thoroughly explored and increase perceptions of fairness. For  example, EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council  published a model plan for public participation in which providing a  skilled facilitator is a critical element. However, hiring a facilitator may  require additional expense.
Streamlining the DAP program development process. Many laws govern  the fishery management process. Yet, according to stakeholders, how these  laws are applied often results in a costly and lengthy fishery management  process. To decrease the time and effort required to develop DAP programs  and other fishery management plans, NMFS has proposed adopting  administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process, and some  stakeholders have suggested amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to  incorporate elements of NEPA and then exempt the Magnuson-Stevens Act  from NEPA.
Adopt administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process.
Stakeholders have suggested that NMFS streamline the process for  developing fishery management plans, such as DAP programs. This  effort is underway. NMFS issued revised draft guidelines in August 2005  for developing fishery management plans that, among other things,  integrate the many statutory requirements, such as NEPA, that govern  fisheries management. NMFS expects that these new guidelines will  increase the quality of their decisions, improve their ability to  successfully defend lawsuits, and decrease the overall time and effort  required to create a fishery management plan, such as a DAP program.  However, officials recognize that the new process will create additional  work for councils in the early stages of plan development.
Amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to incorporate NEPA requirements.
Some stakeholders have suggested that the Magnuson-Stevens Act be  amended to include elements of NEPA and then exempt the Magnuson- Stevens Act from NEPA. While we recognize that the councils do not  have the authority to make these decisions, some stakeholders believe  that this option would remove duplicative effort and decrease the time  needed to develop DAP programs. However, others say that NEPA  requirements can benefit the decision-making process by providing key  analyses and participation opportunities not required by the Magnuson- Stevens Act, such as the requirements to use an early and open process  for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and to assess  different DAP program options before making a decision.
Diversifying interests represented in the council process. Stakeholders and  participation experts suggested two methods for more fully including all  interests in the DAP program development process: diversifying interests  represented on the councils and their advisory committees, and helping  ensure that stakeholders have organized representation.
Diversify interests represented on the councils and their advisory  committees. Stakeholders suggested that the councils and their advisory  committees should have more diverse membership. Methods for  diversifying the councils could include amending the Magnuson-Stevens  Act to require balanced representation from a wider set of stakeholders  beyond commercial and recreational fishery participants, and  nominating a wider array of stakeholders from each state to serve on the  councils. While we recognize that the councils do not have the authority  to make these decisions, stakeholders believed that diversifying  interests represented on the councils was important. Regarding  representation on advisory committees, stakeholders requested a more  participatory process for selecting committee members. For example, a  council could determine the interests it wishes to have represented and  then allow people representing those interests to select their own  committee representatives. While stakeholders may perceive this option  as being fairer, it may be difficult for groups to coordinate among  themselves to select a representative. Also, depending on the fishery, it  may be difficult to find people willing to serve on the advisory  committees. While diversifying interests can enhance participation,  such a change could increase the length of the decision-making process  and make it more difficult for councils to reach decisions.
Help ensure that stakeholders have organized representation in the  DAP program development process. Stakeholders have noted that those  who are organized and have a designated representative who follows  the process and provides input to the council on their behalf are able to  participate more effectively in the DAP program development process.  Intensive training programs such as MREP may help stakeholders  organize. For example, a fisherman who attended MREP training said  that he used information he learned at MREP to form an organization to  represent his fishing gear type at New England Council proceedings.  While organizing can enhance participation, it may not be the role of the  councils or NMFS to help stakeholders organize.
Sharing decision-making authority. To help respond to stakeholders’  requests for more input into decision making, stakeholders suggested  holding a referendum and participation experts suggested using  collaborative or consensus-based decision making.
Hold a referendum. A referendum is a means of submitting proposed  rules or laws to a direct vote. In the fishery management context,  holding a referendum allows a specified group of stakeholders to vote  on whether to develop a DAP program or whether to adopt a specific  DAP plan. For example, the Congress required NMFS to hold two  referenda among red snapper fishing license holders. In the first  referendum, a majority decided that the council should develop an IFQ  program for red snapper, and the second referendum will decide  whether to submit the IFQ plan to the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS  was required to identify and notify license holders, decide how to weight  votes among eligible participants, and then conduct the referendum.  While holding a referendum can provide some stakeholders with direct  decision-making power, it excludes those who are deemed ineligible to  vote. Further, decisions regarding the weight of each vote can create  controversy among eligible stakeholders. Also, a referendum can be  time-consuming to administer and may be useful only if stakeholders  are sufficiently informed about the issues.
Use collaborative or consensus-based decision making. Participation  experts suggested the use of collaborative or consensus-based  approaches. These approaches allow stakeholders to fully explore  issues together, often with the help of a facilitator, by working toward  consensus rather than making majority-based decisions. EPA has used  this process with local government, industry, community, and  environmental interests to help develop new strategies for achieving  environmental protection. While participation experts say that  collaborative decision making can more fully uphold the core  participation principles we identified and help participants find  solutions to seemingly intractable problems, it can be resource-intensive  and does not guarantee agreement.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: A wide range of stakeholders, such as council members, vessel owners,  crew members, and processors, have indicated that some stakeholders face  obstacles to effective participation under the current DAP program  development process. While the current council practices involve  stakeholders in ways that are prescribed by law, opportunities exist for  more strategic and effective stakeholder involvement that could lead to a  more inclusive decision-making process on what are frequently  controversial issues. Federal agencies have developed elements of  effective stakeholder participation frameworks that could serve as models  for NMFS and the councils, and could be adapted to the fisheries  management context. Based on this experience, we believe that  commitment and leadership by NMFS and the regional fishery management  councils, demonstrated by adopting core participation principles, and  providing guidance and training on how to strategically implement  stakeholder participation approaches, will be critical to enhancing  stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs,  we are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the  Administrator of NOAA to direct the Director of NMFS to:   establish a formal policy for stakeholder participation, including  adopting a set of core principles to guide stakeholder participation  activities;   provide guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council  members, and council staff on developing and using a strategic  approach to stakeholder participation; and  ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for  stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic  approach.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Commerce for  review and comment. We received a written response from the Deputy  Secretary of Commerce that includes comments from NOAA on behalf of  NMFS. Overall, NMFS acknowledged that more can be done to improve  stakeholder participation and agreed with our recommendations.
The agency agreed with our first recommendation, to establish a formal  policy for stakeholder participation. NOAA said that the agency will form  an internal working group to develop a draft policy for stakeholder  participation and refine the core principles listed in our report for  application within the context of council operations. NOAA also said that  this policy will form an integral part of a broader agency outreach and  education policy currently being developed.
The agency also agreed with our second recommendation, to provide  guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council members, and  council staff on developing and using a strategic approach to stakeholder  participation. While the agency plans to add the stakeholder participation  policy to its training curriculum, our recommendation also included  providing guidance to the councils on how to develop and use a strategic  approach to stakeholder participation. In our report, we noted that federal  agencies such as DOE and EPA have created guidance to help staff design,  implement, and evaluate participation efforts. We believe NMFS could  benefit from a similar approach.
The agency also agreed in substance with our third recommendation, to  ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for  stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic  approach. While we are encouraged that the agency is planning to work  with council members and staff to implement a participation framework  that includes jointly-developed core principles, it is important that the  framework also includes a strategic approach that NMFS and the councils  can use to effectively implement the core principles in specific situations.
NOAA also provided technical comments that we have incorporated into  the report as appropriate. NOAA’s comments and our detailed responses  are presented in appendix IV of this report.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Director of the National  Marine Fisheries Service. We will also provide copies to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This is the fourth in a series of reports on individual fishing quota (IFQ) and  other dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs requested by the  Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the former Subcommittee on  Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Senate Committee on Commerce,  Science, and Transportation. For this report, we reviewed the development  of domestic DAP programs to determine (1) the extent to which the  regional fishery management councils are using a framework for effective  stakeholder participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and  participation experts suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in the  development of DAP programs.
To determine the extent to which the regional fishery management councils  are using a framework for effective stakeholder participation, we reviewed  the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the  National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and  Executive Order 12866, which together set out many of the stakeholder  participation requirements for developing fishery management plans,  including DAP programs and other plans for managing fisheries in federal  waters. We also reviewed National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)  guidance to the regional fishery management councils regarding the  requirements for preparing and reviewing DAP programs, and council  statements of organization, practices, and procedures. In addition, we  reviewed the academic literature on public participation theory and  practice, our prior work, and federal agency and international organization  public participation guides, policies, and guidance. Finally, we interviewed  and obtained the views of participation experts and federal agency officials  on core principles for effective stakeholder participation, strategies for  implementing the principles, and leading government models for  establishing an effective participation framework.
To determine the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest  for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP  programs, we interviewed DAP program stakeholders, participation  experts, and officials at federal agencies with public involvement  programs. We reviewed participation policies from the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and public  participation guidance from EPA, DOE, the Bureau of Land Management,  the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Research Council, the U.S.  Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and the World Bank.
For both objectives, we reviewed the activities of four regional fishery  management councils—the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific,  and Pacific councils. We selected these councils to obtain broad  geographic coverage of councils where DAP programs were being  developed. We attended council and advisory committee meetings in Fort  Myers Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; Girdwood, Alaska; Foster City,  California; and Portland, Oregon. At these meetings and elsewhere, we  interviewed DAP program stakeholders and their representatives,  including commercial vessel owners, captains, and crew; recreational  fishermen; fish dealers and processors; environmentalists; fishing  communities; and state and federal fishery managers. We obtained their  views on obstacles to participation and potential methods for enhancing  participation.
We also surveyed the members of the four fishery management councils  whose meetings we attended. Specifically, we prepared and distributed a  Web-based survey to voting and nonvoting members of these councils to  obtain their views on opportunities for stakeholder participation in the  development of DAP programs, obstacles to stakeholder participation, and  potential methods for enhancing participation. With the assistance of  council staff, we identified council members who had attended at least one  council meeting between August 2004 and August 2005, and we included all  of the 74 council members that met this criterion in our sampling frame.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  nonsampling error. For example, differences in how a particular question is  interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or the  types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability  into the survey results. We included steps in both the data collection and  data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling  errors. For example, we pre-tested the survey with a council member from  each of the four councils and used their feedback to refine the survey. Also,  to reduce survey non-response, we sent e-mail reminders and conducted  follow-up telephone calls with nonrespondents. Overall, 78 percent of the  council members in our sampling frame responded to our survey, and all  but the Gulf Council had response rates of 78 percent or higher.
We notified participants of the survey’s availability on August 29, 2005, the  day that Hurricane Katrina struck the Central Gulf of Mexico Coast.  Because of the devastation caused by the hurricane, we were not able to  contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council. Additionally, we did  not conduct follow-up telephone calls with Gulf Council members who  received, but did not complete, the survey, although they were sent e-mail  reminders. Given that we received responses from only 57 percent of the  Gulf Council members, we do not know if their responses differ materially  from the 43 percent who did not complete the survey. However, we do not  report information by council, and the survey data are reported as  illustrative data in support of other information collected in the course of  our review. Table 1, below, provides information on participation in our  council member survey.
We conducted our review from April through November 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of Fishery Management Council Members
paragraphs: This appendix contains a summary of responses to the Web-based survey  we administered to the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific, and  Pacific fishery management councils. In that survey, we asked council  members for their views on obstacles to participation and potential  methods for enhancing participation in the development of DAP programs.  We surveyed 74 council members and received 58 responses. In the tables  below, totals may not equal 58 due to non-responses.
subsections: section_title: Survey Questions and Responses
paragraphs: Q1. Have you attended at least one council meeting in the past year (since August 2004)?
Q2. How useful are the following sources of stakeholder input in helping you make DAP program decisions in your region?
Q3. To what extent do opportunities exist for stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs in your region?
Q4. How well are the interests of the following stakeholder groups represented in the development of DAP programs in your region?
Q5. The following items have been suggested as possible obstacles to stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. To  what extent does each item hinder participation for the following stakeholder groups in your region?
Q5j. Lack of representation on advisory committees Q5k. Lack of representation on the council Q6. Have stakeholders used or attempted to use the legislative process rather than the council process to get a DAP program approved in  your region? 58 Q7. How much of a reason are each of the following for why stakeholders have used or attempted to use the legislative process rather than  the council process to get a DAP program approved?
The program could not be authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Stakeholders wanted to ensure that they got their way.
Q8. To what extent would the following activities improve the effectiveness of stakeholder participation in the development of DAP  programs?
Q9. Some of the following actions have been suggested to improve stakeholder participation. How effective do you think each of these  actions would be in improving stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs?
section_title: Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in the United States
paragraphs: This appendix describes the nine DAP programs that have been  implemented in the United States for fisheries under the management  authority of the regional fishery management councils. The term “IFQ” as  used in this appendix includes individual transferable quota.
subsections: section_title: Mid-Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog IFQ Program (1990)
paragraphs: Surfclams and ocean quahogs are mollusks found along the East Coast,  primarily from Maine to Virginia, with commercial concentrations off the  Mid-Atlantic Coast. While ocean quahogs are found farther offshore than  surfclams, the same vessels are largely used in each fishery. These vessels  tow hydraulic clam dredges that extract clams from the ocean floor. The  catch is emptied into metal cages holding roughly 32 bushels each, off- loaded at one of a small number of landing sites, and sold to processing  facilities. Surfclams are used in strip form for fried clams and in chopped or  ground form for soups and chowders. Ocean quahogs are used in soups,  chowders, and white sauces. The fishery consists of a few large firms that  both catch and process, small processors, and independent fishermen.
The surfclam fishery developed after World War II. When the surfclam  fishery declined in the mid-1970s, the ocean quahog fishery arose as a  substitute. Disease and overfishing led the Mid-Atlantic Fishery  Management Council to develop a management plan for surfclams and  oceans quahogs—the first such plan in the United States. Between 1977  and 1990, the council and NMFS used a variety of controls to limit the  harvest to sustainable levels, such as restrictions on fishing times, areas  fished, clam sizes, gear, vessels, who fished, and how fishing occurred. An  IFQ program was established for the surfclam/ocean quahog fishery in  1990—the first DAP program approved under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The program was designed to help stabilize the fishery, reduce excessive  investment in fishing capacity, and simplify the regulatory requirements of  the fishery to minimize the government and industry cost of administering  and complying with program requirements. Program rules allow quota  holders to sell or lease their quota, but they provide no specific and  measurable limits on how much quota an individual can accumulate.
section_title: South Atlantic Wreckfish IFQ Program (1992)
paragraphs: Wreckfish are found in deep waters far off the South Atlantic coast,  primarily from Florida to South Carolina. They were first discovered in the  southern Atlantic in the 1980s by a fisherman recovering lost gear.  Wreckfish are fished by vessels over 50 feet in length using specialized gear.  These vessels are used primarily in other fisheries. Wreckfish are sold fresh  or frozen as a market substitute for snapper and grouper.
Within 3 years of the discovery of wreckfish, wreckfish landings increased  to more than 3 million pounds a year, and the number of vessels used for  catching wreckfish increased from 2 to 40. Because of concerns that the  resource could not support unlimited expansion, the South Atlantic Fishery  Management Council added wreckfish to the snapper-grouper fishery  management plan and set the catch limit at 2 million pounds per year. The  council developed an IFQ program for wreckfish in 1991. After the IFQ  program was implemented in 1992, wreckfish landings declined rapidly,  partly because quota holders started participating in easier, less costly  fisheries with higher market values. Today, the wreckfish fishing fleet is  small, with only 3 vessels reporting wreckfish landings in 2004.
section_title: Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (1992)
paragraphs: The Bering Sea, bounded to the south by Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, is one of  the most highly productive marine systems in the world and supports some  of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in U.S. waters.  Historically, most of the wealth generated by these fisheries did not flow to  Alaska Natives because they generally did not have the capital needed to  participate. The Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ)  Program was created by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in  1992 to provide western Alaska coastal communities the opportunity to  participate in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands fisheries that had been closed  to them. The program is designed to provide the means for starting or  supporting commercial fisheries business activities that will result in an  ongoing, regionally based, fisheries-related economy in western Alaska. To  accomplish this goal, the program allocates a percentage of all Bering Sea  and Aleutian Islands catch quotas for groundfish, prohibited species,  halibut, and crab to the six CDQ groups that represent eligible CDQ  communities. CDQ groups then partner with one or more fishing and  processing companies, who pay royalties for the right to catch and process  their share of the allocation. The CDQ groups primarily use these royalty  payments to fund community development projects that are tied directly to  fishery-related activities or to support education. The program is jointly  managed by the state of Alaska and NMFS. The state is primarily  responsible for the day-to-day administration and oversight of the  economic development aspects of the program, and NMFS and the North  Pacific Council are primarily responsible for managing the groundfish and  halibut CDQ fisheries and for general program oversight.
section_title: Alaskan Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program (1995)
paragraphs: Pacific halibut and sablefish (black cod) are found off the coast of Alaska,  among other areas. The fishing fleets are primarily composed of owner- operated vessels of various lengths that use hook-and-line gear for halibut  and hook-and-line or pot (fish trap) gear for sablefish. Some vessels catch  both halibut and sablefish. The International Pacific Halibut Commission  manages the halibut fishery under a treaty between the United States and  Canada. The Halibut Commission adopts conservation regulations, such as  season dates and area catch limits. NMFS, in consultation with the North  Pacific Fishery Management Council, has the authority to develop other  regulations that do not conflict with the Halibut Commission’s regulations.
Historically, there was no limit on the number of people who could  participate in the halibut and sablefish fisheries, and, starting in the mid- 1970s, the number of boats in these fisheries began to increase rapidly. By  the late 1980s, overcapitalization of the halibut and sablefish fleets led to  seasons that lasted less than 2 days in some areas and a race for fish that  put boats and fishermen at risk and resulted in gear loss, excessive bycatch  of species other than halibut, and poor product quality, among other things.  In response to these conditions, the North Pacific Council developed an  IFQ program that was implemented by NMFS in 1995. The program was  designed, in part, to help improve safety for fishermen, enhance efficiency,  reduce excessive investment in fishing capacity, and protect the owner- operator character of the fleet. The program set caps on the amount of  quota that any one person may hold, limited transfers to bona fide  fishermen, issued quota in four vessel categories, and prohibited quota  transfers across vessel categories. The program was amended in 2004 to  allow 42 Gulf of Alaska coastal communities to form nonprofit entities to  purchase and hold quota.
section_title: Whiting Conservation Cooperative (1997)
paragraphs: The Pacific whiting fishery, located off the coast of Washington, Oregon,  and California, is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery Management  Council. Whiting is harvested using mid-water trawl nets (cone-shaped nets  towed behind a vessel) and primarily processed into surimi. The council  has divided the Pacific whiting total allowable catch among three sectors— vessels that deliver to onshore processors, vessels that deliver to  processing vessels, and vessels that catch and also process.
In the 1990s, the fishery was overcapitalized and fishing companies were  engaged in a race for fish. In 1997, four companies operating the 10 catcher- processor vessels in the fishery voluntarily formed the Whiting  Conservation Cooperative, which is organized as a nonprofit corporation  under the laws of the state of Washington. The overall purposes of the  cooperative are to (1) promote the intelligent and orderly harvest of  whiting, (2) reduce waste and improve resource utilization, and (3) reduce  incidental catch of species other than whiting. The cooperative is not  involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of whiting products.
The cooperative’s contract allocates the total allowable catch of Pacific  whiting for the catcher-processor sector among the cooperative’s members,  who agree to limit their individual harvests to a specific percentage of the  catch allowed. Once individual allocations are made, the contract allows  for quota transfers among member companies. To monitor the catch, the  contract requires the members to maintain full-time federal observers on  their vessels. Member companies bear the cost of the observer coverage.  The contract also requires members to report catches to a private  centralized monitoring service. To ensure compliance, the contract  contains substantial financial penalties for members exceeding their share  of the quota.
section_title: Pollock Conservation Cooperative (1998)
paragraphs: The pollock fishery off the coast of Alaska is the largest U.S. fishery by  volume. The fishery is under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Fishery  Management Council, which sets the total allowable catch each year. About  5 percent of the allowed catch is held in reserve to allow for the incidental  taking of pollock by other fisheries, 10 percent is allocated to Alaska’s  community development quota program, and the remainder (called the  “directed fishing allowance”) is allocated to the pollock fishery. Pollock is  harvested using mid-water trawl nets. Pollock swim in large, tightly packed  schools and do not co-mingle with other fish species. Pollock are primarily  processed into surimi and fillets. In the 1990s, the Bering Sea pollock  fishery was severely overcapitalized, producing a race for fish. As a result,  the fishing season was reduced from 12 months in 1990 to 3 months in 1998.
The fishery is composed of three sectors—inshore, offshore catcher- processor, and offshore mothership (large processing vessel). The  American Fisheries Act statutorily allocated the pollock fishery total  allowable catch among these three sectors and specified the eligible  participants in each sector. The nine companies that operated the 20  qualified catcher-processor vessels formed the Pollock Conservation  Cooperative in December 1998 to end the race for fish. Under the  cooperative’s agreement, members limit their individual catches to a  specific percentage of the total allowable catch allocated to their sector.  Once the catch is allocated, members can freely transfer their quota to  other members. Member vessels carry two federal observers at all times  and a private sector firm also tracks daily catch and incidental catch data to  ensure that each member stays within its agreed upon harvest limits. To  ensure compliance, the contract contains substantial financial penalties for  members exceeding their share of the quota. The cooperative is not  involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of pollock products. In  addition to operating under the terms of the cooperative’s contract,  members of the cooperative must conduct fishing activities in compliance  with certain NMFS and council requirements regarding the fishing season,  area restrictions, and incidental catch limits.
section_title: Pacific Sablefish Permit Stacking Program (2002)
paragraphs: Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California  are managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Pacific Coast  Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Sablefish (black cod) is a desirable  groundfish species because of its high value per pound. Sablefish are  harvested using trawl and nontrawl gear. In 1987, the Pacific Council  established a sablefish allocation between trawl and nontrawl sectors. In  1994, the council created a limited entry program for most of the trawl and  nontrawl sablefish harvest and continued to divide the allocation between  the two sectors.
For many years, the sablefish fixed-gear (longline and fishpots or “traps”)  sector has been separated into a small, year-round daily trip limit fishery  and a primary season fishery that typically harvested about 85 percent of  the allocation. The council managed the primary season fishery by setting  the season short enough to ensure that the fishery would not exceed its  quota. By 1996, however, increases in vessel capacity and competition for  fish and decreases in the amount of fish available led to a 5-day season in  the primary season fishery and a race for fish. In 1997, the council  developed a sablefish endorsement program that limited participation in  the primary season fishery to those permit holders with historical  participation in the sablefish fishery. In 1998, the council created a three- tier program that placed fixed gear fishermen with sablefish-endorsed  permits in one of three tiers based on their catch history. Each tier receives  a certain number of pounds to fish annually, with the first tier receiving the  greatest allotment of fish and the third tier receiving the lowest. Permit  holders in the same tier receive the same allotment of fish. While the  fishing pace slowed somewhat under the three-tier program, the primary  season was still less than 10 days long. To address issues of safety,  efficiency, and equity, among others, the council created a permit stacking  program that was implemented in 2002. Under this program, a vessel owner  may register up to 3 sablefish-endorsed permits on his vessel. The permits  can come from different tiers. This process, known as “permit stacking”, is  designed to reduce the number of vessels fishing, and the fishing season  was eventually extended to several months.
section_title: Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Allocation Program (2004)
paragraphs: The Northeast multispecies fishery, under the jurisdiction of the New  England Fishery Management Council, consists of 15 groundfish species  from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Historically, the council and  NMFS had managed the fishery through restrictions on the number of days  fished, closed areas, trip limits, minimum fish sizes, limited access, and  gear restrictions. Nonetheless, many stocks were overfished or  approaching an overfished condition, including stocks in the Georges Bank  area—once a particularly productive area at the southernmost part of a  chain of huge shoals that extend from Newfoundland to southern New  England, on the edge of the North American continental shelf. In response  to a lawsuit filed against NMFS alleging that the stock rebuilding plans  implemented by NMFS did not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a  federal court judge ordered that measures be taken by August 2003 to end  overfishing in the fishery.
The New England Council developed Amendment 13 to the Northeast  multispecies fishery management plan to bring the plan into conformance  with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including ending overfishing and  rebuilding overfished stocks. Among other things, the amendment  authorized the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector, established the sector area,  and specified a formula for allocating up to 20 percent of the total catch  allowed for Georges Bank cod to the sector. The sector submitted a sector  allocation proposal consisting of an operations plan for the sector, a  contract signed by all sector participants indicating their agreement to  abide by the operations plan, and an environmental analysis to comply with  National Environmental Policy Act requirements. NMFS approved the  proposal and allocated quota to the sector. Sector members can, in turn,  allocate the fish among themselves in any way they choose. About 60  fishermen participated in the program in 2004.
section_title: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (2005)
paragraphs: The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area contains eight large crab  fisheries, the largest of which are the Bristol Bay red king crab, the Bering  Sea snow crab, and the Bering Sea Tanner crab fisheries. These fisheries  are subject to joint federal and state management with certain elements of  oversight, including monitoring, in-season management, and observer  coverage, deferred to the state of Alaska. Historically, the fisheries had  been managed using a guideline harvest level that set target catch limits. By  2002, six of the eight crab fisheries had experienced stock declines, which  resulted in a race for fish or, in some cases, closed fisheries. The race for  fish put pressure on participants to fish in unsafe weather conditions and  work for long periods without rest, resulting in a proportionately higher  number of fatalities than in other Alaskan commercial fisheries.
To alleviate overcapacity and safety issues associated with the race for fish,  the Congress mandated that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council  analyze several different approaches to rationalization. The council  selected its preferred alternative, a “three-pie voluntary cooperative  program,” and presented its analysis to the Congress in August 2002. The  program was subsequently mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations  Act of 2004 for NMFS approval by January 2005, and was effective as of  April 1, 2005. The program provides for allocations of harvesting shares to  harvesters, communities, and captains; processing shares to processors;  and landings and processing activity to designated regions to preserve their  historic interests in the fishery. The program also permits harvesters to  form voluntary cooperatives associated with one or more processors  holding processing shares. Because of the program’s novelty, the council  included several safeguards in it, such as binding arbitration to resolve  price disputes, and extensive data collection and review to assess the  success of the rationalization program.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Commerce
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on NOAA’s written comments provided  by the Deputy Secretary of Commerce in a letter dated February 3, 2006.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. We revised the text to make it clear that our report summarizes the  methods for enhancing stakeholder participation suggested by  stakeholders and participation experts; our report makes no  recommendations regarding these methods. 2. We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS has efforts underway to  streamline the process for developing fishery management plans. 3. We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS is a component of  NOAA. 4. We revised the text to reflect that NMFS had implemented ten DAP  programs, including nine programs for fisheries under the management  authority of the regional fishery management councils and one program  for a fishery under the management authority of the Secretary of  Commerce. We also added a description of the Pacific Council’s  sablefish permit stacking program in appendix III. 5. We agreed to provide NOAA with information on the participation  experts and literature we consulted in preparing our report.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Stephen D. Secrist, Assistant Director;  Candace M. Carpenter; Allen T. Chan; Nancy L. Crothers; Susan J. Malone;  Gregory A. Marchand; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this  report.