The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the New England Fisheries Management Council met yesterday and today in Boston to review the report developed by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI) in support of Governor Patrick’s request to the U.S. Department of Commerce for emergency relief for Massachusetts fishermen. The MFI report concluded that recent fishery management actions had produced losses on the order of $21 million dollars for Massachusetts fishermen and that catch limits could be raised without compromising the health of the fish populations or the conservation objectives of the management plan.

The SSC is a distinguished, international panel of scientists, some of whom have been assessing fish populations in New England for decades. Specifically, the SSC was asked to review several positions taken by the MFI report:

1.      Whether the methodologies used to calculate the biological reference points and the catch limits represented the best available science;

2.      Whether the methodology chosen to set catch limits resulted in an overly conservative approach because of “double counting” of scientific uncertainty;

3.      Whether there were other aspects of the fish modeling, such as the presence of so-called “retrospective patterns” in the models,  that resulted in overly cautious adjustments of the catch recommendations;

4.      Whether there were any recommendations for additional information that could be used in the future to improve the assessment process.

The SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report. In their discussion, they noted a number of places where the conclusions were based on faulty premises or ignored widely recognized issues that the scientists who had developed the original catch limit recommendations had addressed when they set the limits.

They concluded that the stock assessment and catch specification process was fully consistent with best scientific practices, that there was no “double counting” of uncertainty or risk, and that the annual catch limits could not be increased without increasing, in some cases significantly, the risk of meeting the conservation objectives of the New England Council and the federal statute that controls harvest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In their brief economic review, the SSC rejected the analysis and conclusions from the MFI report. Aside from noting that it was questionable to draw economic or social conclusions from a new management plan that had only been in effect for six months, the SSC noted that the report misrepresented $21 million of theoretical losses as actual losses and did not account for the revenues from the numerous other species that groundfishermen pursue in addition to the groundfish species. A number of SSC members also indicated that comparisons to the 2009 fishing year were not proper since the scientists had all concluded that the 2009 catch limits were set significantly too high for many species. The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis.

The SSC did acknowledge that there was always room for improvement in fish stock assessments and that additional research on both the assessment methodologies and a range of social and economic effects should be considered in the future.

The MFI report has now been rejected as a basis for emergency action or even immediate reconsideration of existing harvest levels by the Department of Commerce, a national scientific meeting of fisheries experts, and by the New England SSC.  It is time to move on and focus on continuing to improve the management system in New England so that we can restore healthy fish populations that support thriving and diverse regional fishing communities as quickly as practicable.

Atlantic cod

CLF has been working for twenty years to end overfishing in New England and to rebuild the imperiled fish populations that are the foundation of our regional fishing future. The New England fishing industry was subsidized to grow so big that its capacity to catch fish exceeded the capacity of the ocean to produce fish, and historic lows of fish populations (determined using data that span many generations) were reached in the mid-1990s. Since that time, the struggle to re-balance fishing effort with natural reproduction levels has been economically painful, and with few viable, options many fishermen have been forced out of the business or into other fisheries.

We at CLF see some light at the end of the rebuilding tunnel now. Fish populations are coming back, and in some cases, like haddock, they are fully rebuilt. Others, such as Atlantic cod, won’t be fully rebuilt until 2026, but they are gaining ground. The most recent fishery management plan, Amendment 16, helps ensure the continuation of this rebuilding trend. This plan is being legally challenged by New Bedford and Gloucester and some others. CLF is for the first time intervening in a court action on behalf of the government to defend this management plan, which ends overfishing, establishes enforceable quotas on fishing, and offers new flexibility to fishermen in how and when they fish.

CLF is not alone in our optimism that Amendment 16 finally is creating a future for the fishing industry. For an interesting perspective from one of Congress’s great ocean champions, former Representative Tom Allen, read this op-ed he authored in the Portland Press Herald. In his writing, Tom displays the vision, the compassion, and the judgment that convinced his constituents to send him back to Congress time after time. He offers a different perspective on the doom-and-gloom that occupies much of the slanted reporting that some local papers have been carrying.

In arguments made today before Federal Judge Rya W. Zobel on the federal lawsuit regarding the New England fisheries management system known as Amendment 16, Conservation Law Foundation senior counsel Peter Shelley defended the process in which the new rules were developed and agreed upon at the New England Fishery Management Council and re-affirmed CLF’s support for the Amendment.

Shelley stated, “This lawsuit is not so much about the specific merits of Amendment 16, but more about the integrity of the process by which the new rules were developed and vetted and set into motion. The process, which involved all of the fishing interests, including some who today decry it and the outcome it produced, was fair, rational and legal. New Bedford’s interests were directly represented in those lengthy deliberations and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts participated actively in both the Amendment 16 science decision-making and the policy development. This is the New England Council’s plan, not a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan.”

“CLF supports the Council’s approval of Amendment 16 not because it is perfect, but because it represents a reasonable decision, reached after an extended transparent public debate that reasonably meets the Magnuson Stevens Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements while attempting to provide additional flexibility for fishermen in the region to fish more efficiently and profitably if they want to. The related issues of consolidation and fairness in access to fish are on the Council’s plate now and should be carefully analyzed and debated.”

After the hearing, Shelley observed, “What we have learned over the past fifteen years is that strong and effective management of this important public resource, coupled with some degree of luck with Mother Nature, can restore fish populations to high levels and support a vital and stable domestic fishing industry. Amendment 16 is designed to accomplish that objective and is consistent with the Magnuson Act.”

Read the text of Peter’s full argument here.

CLF Senior Counsel Peter Shelley spoke to Boston’s ABC affiliate WCVB-TV in response to Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke’s decision on Friday to reject Governor Patrick’s request to increase catch limits, citing the lack of scientific and economic evidence indicating that such an increase was necessary. Shelley stated that the industry has actually benefited economically by the new catch limits since they went into effect in May 2010, while fish stocks have been steadily increasing.

“There is a win-win that can be seen by restoring the fish populations. You can’t have a healthy industry that’s based on a resource base that’s disappearing,” Shelley said during the segment.

For those of you who missed Friday’s broadcast, click here to watch the clip online:

Last Friday, CLF filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in support of Amendment 16 in a federal lawsuit challenging the new groundfishery management regulations, which went into effect on May 1, 2010. The lawsuit, brought by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford and members of the fishing industry, broadly challenges the new fishing regulations – known as Amendment 16 – on a variety of grounds. CLF, which has long fought for a science-based, more balanced system of fisheries management to ensure a sustainable fishing industry, supports Amendment 16 as critical to ending decades of overfishing in federal waters off of New England’s coast. CLF will intervene as a defendant with the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the senior officials of which were both named as parties.

“The new rules introduced under Amendment 16 are game-changing,” said Peter Shelley, CLF vice president and director of its Massachusetts Advocacy Center. “They have to be to achieve the balance that is needed between the size of our fishing fleet and the amount of fish New England waters can produce, if we want a sustainable fishing industry for generations to come. Importantly, the rules also introduce unprecedented levels of flexibility into the system in an effort to help the fleet operate more efficiently and safely.”

The 2010 fishing season introduced the most sweeping set of changes to New England groundfish fisheries since the Magnuson-Stevens Act was enacted in 1976, establishing U.S. jurisdiction on fisheries within 200 miles of the coast. Amendment 16 put into place science-based catch limits and accountability measures to minimize overfishing of key groundfish, such as cod and pollock, as well as a new management system called sector allocation, designed to provide fishermen more flexibility in organizing their businesses.

Shelley continued, “Large management changes such as these do not come without myriad frustrations from unintended consequences that need to be addressed. In order to get to the results the broader fishing and conservation communities want from these new rules, everyone – governments, regulators, fishermen and conservation groups – needs to work together to get it right. The early data from these new rules is encouraging. We need to face the inevitable challenges and see this through.”