Rob Moir: Rules threaten effort to save fish
My View
Rob Moir September 25, 2008
—
Conservationists, seafood lovers and oceans activists everywhere were heartened by the recent reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) in 2006, extending and strengthening the premier fisheries law in the United States.
Here in New England, where the collapse of the iconic cod fishery has led to dire economic and environmental consequences, the importance of sound fisheries management is more than just another regulatory exercise.
Implementation of the new MSA requires a set of updated regulations that will ensure that the spirit of the law and the intent to finally end overfishing are respected.
There are currently two proposed rules pending before the National Marine Fisheries Service that deserve our attention and input. These rules will guide regional fishery management councils in attempting to comply with the law. Now we, the public, have the opportunity to more fully participate in fishery management and demand an end to overfishing in U.S. waters. However, the devil, as they say, is in the regulatory details.
The initial draft of the NMFS regulatory guidelines lays out a framework for implementing science-based annual catch limits on all regulated species and establishing accountability measures if overfishing occurs. As we work towards the goal of achieving a comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach, species management using the best available science will be our only hope of restoring depleted stocks to sustainable levels.
Under the proposed rule for annual catch limits, when established limits are reached, directed fishing on those stocks will be stopped, preventing overfishing and the depletion of the resource. If the rules are clear, fishermen will know their limits and the fish will have the chance to recover. Because even the best available fisheries science can be uncertain, the proposed rule recommends a buffer between management targets and catch limits that will ensure that limits are not exceeded. The proposed rule should go beyond recommending buffers, it should require them.
While not perfect, this proposed Annual Catch Limits rule represents an important step forward in strengthening the role of science in fisheries management and, importantly, establishes a process that will provide clear guidance for fishery managers that is understandable to fishermen.
NMFS should strengthen and tighten the proposed rule so that loopholes don't undermine the intent of the law and rebuilding efforts stay on track.
A second proposed rule in the implementation of the MSA is the development of procedures to better integrate the National Environmental Policy Act into all fishery management decision-making.
The NEPA rule, as editorials have opined, is on the wrong track for fishery management and should be withdrawn. It limits public participation in the process and creates an even more complicated environmental review procedure.
Reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Act was an important first step towards ensuring that the health of our oceans — and the fishing communities that depend on them — is protected. But the regulations proposed to implement the act fall short of requiring that the uncertainty in marine science is accounted for when setting catch limits to end overfishing. Furthermore, the NEPA proposal severely limits the voices of the many interest groups that are a necessary part of fisheries management. Now is not the time to take our eye off of the regulatory ball, when the actual implementation of this act can have such profound impacts on us all.
|
