COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 36 Number 8
April 2009
NMFS science OK; communication is the problem
WASHINGTON, DC – The Commerce Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released the findings of its extensive four-month investigation into the quality of the science produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
In short, OIG found that the center’s work “meets the ‘best available science’ requirements of National Standard 2” to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and is even considered by some to be “world-class.”
However, OIG also found that many fishermen do not trust NMFS and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). And this, the investigators determined, went to the heart of the region’s problems.
“In our view, many of the allegations we investigated stem not from questionable scientific methods, but rather from unclear communication and misunderstanding between NMFS and the fishing industry that have the effect of eroding the industry’s trust in NMFS,” wrote Inspector General Todd Zinser in his final report.
“Out of the nine allegations we examined, we concluded that six are the result of ineffective communications and ongoing tension between the groundfish industry and NOAA,” Zinser said.
The investigation was requested by US Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Kerry (D-MA) through an Aug. 28, 2008 letter to Zinser. The senators asked OIG to focus particularly on groundfish and the science that went into the latest Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting, known as GARM III, which will drive Amendment 16.
Zinser sent the final report to the senators on Feb. 26 and said that OIG would be sharing its observations with NOAA and making recommendations for improvement.
Extensive input
Over the course of its investigation, OIG representatives traveled extensively to observe groundfish management in action and conduct one-on-one and group interviews. In all, OIG investigators:
Met with or spoke to government officials and fisheries scientists from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine’s fisheries agencies, as well as fishermen, industry association leaders, environmental group representatives, researchers involved in assessments and peer reviews, and researchers not involved in the process, including international scientists;
Attended the Oct. 14, 2008 groundfish field hearing in Portland, ME before the US Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, which was chaired by Snowe;
Conducted interviews at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, MA;
Attended the Nov. 17-20 meeting of the New England Fishery Management Council in Danvers, MA;
Met with staff at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office in Gloucester; and
Traveled again to Maine in January to conduct additional interviews.
Science
While OIG investigators found that some interviewees challenged the science, they primarily found that “many more impugned the management decisions made with the science.”
Zinser wrote, “Very few interviewees told us that they think NMFS scientists are deceiving fishermen or acting with malice. We heard from many stakeholders external to NOAA, even from several fishermen and external fisheries science researchers, that the science center’s research is as good as it gets, even world-class, and that the scientists do the best they can with what they know.”
Rather, investigators found that “a general lack of confidence and trust in NMFS is at the core of many of the current allegations made about the science.”
Recognizing that the scientific models and terminology used at the science center are complicated, the OIG report stated, “It is NOAA’s responsibility to clearly communicate its scientific decisions to constituents, even more so when the science is complex.”
Conclusions
Investigators found that NMFS had made progress in improving the transparency of the management process since 2004 when the National Research Council conducted its own external review about the use of best available science, but the OIG report concluded, “More work needs to be done to rebuild the relationships with industry, particularly the groundfish industry.”
In conclusion, Zinser said, “Our findings show that the pervasive lack of trust and confidence the groundfish industry has in NOAA manifests itself as doubt in the science. And our investigation ultimately turned its focus on what NOAA is doing and can do to improve its relationship with the groundfish industry.
“Without an improved relationship, we believe the science will continue to be questioned,” Zinser said.
Industry/NMFS reaction
Asked how the Northeast Fisheries Science Center viewed the report’s findings, Science and Research Director Nancy Thompson said, “We’re pleased that the inspector general confirmed the quality of our work. We understand that our results are not easily explained and we look forward to doing a better job on that in the future.”
Pat Kurkul, NMFS’s northeast regional administrator, said the agency already was following up on several of the inspector general’s recommendations.
“We agree that communication can and should be improved,” said Kurkul. “We’re putting plans in place to implement the inspector general’s suggestions, as well as adding some of our own.”
From the industry perspective, Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition said he thought the path of the investigation was misguided in “going after the science.”
“The problem is that the administrators allow the science to go in the direction it does without asking for a wider range of options,” he said.
Giacalone viewed it as “the job of managers to reconcile the huge uncertainties of scientific projections with the strict mandates of 10-year rebuilding limits.”
“Until there is a strong request from the administration for advice that adequately considers the wide range of uncertainties and the irreversible consequences of being wrong, we will continue bankrupting fishing communities for no measurable gain,” he said.
As for the report’s conclusion about poor communication between NMFS and industry, Giacalone said, “It’s absolutely true that better communication is needed, but it would be a mistake if all NMFS thought it needed to do was better explain the science.”
In summary, he said, “Better communication is a two-way street. When industry comes up with ideas, NMFS needs to stop and listen to what industry is saying, even if the suggestions are sometimes a little out of their comfort zone.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
