Applying Community-Based Fisheries Management in the United States At least in the beginning, CBFM initiatives in the United States should probably be narrower than practices abroad, both in form (compared to Japan, for instance) and in process (compared to the Philippines, for instance). We believe it more realistic and productive to apply the approaches and tools of CBFM, most of which have been developed and refined abroad, to a set of goals and objectives that are consistent with CBFM. These goals are to improve the livelihoods of people in fishing communities, and to make management more sustainable. Recommended objectives are as follows: • Reconnect communities with fisheries. • Reconnect fishermen with communities. • Increase the capacity of fishermen to participate actively in management. • Increase collaboration among fishermen and scientists. • Increase the capacity of government agencies to support community based management. As we have argued above, there are several key design considerations in identifying opportunities for applying CBFM in U.S. fisheries. The first of these is settling upon a definition of community. As we showed, definitions may range from simply a small group of fishermen pursuing a particular species with a particular gear in a particular area to a broader coastal community that includes a broader range of interests. Both the literature and our interviews confirmed that CBFM depends upon the ability and authority of a community, however defined, to exclude others from access to a community- managed area or fishery. Even though “ownership” in the sense of community shoreline—as it is in the Philippines, for instance—is not possible in the U.S., “exclusivity” is possible. Activists in the communities we’ve talked to have found ways to get around what seemed to be obstacles, such as the 14th Amendment, the Public Trust Doctrine, National Standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and hundreds of years of common law practice about property rights. They have figured out ways to carve out access rights, quota shares, closed areas, and subsets of overall catch allocation in their efforts to try to do a better job locally than has been done by fishery managers at state and national levels. We have found a number of tools for creating exclusivity, such as cooperatives, harvest-rights of various types, and angling management organizations. Likewise, both the literature regarding CBFM abroad and our interviews emphasized the importance of the means and manner in which CBFM is approached in fishing communities, given the lack of organization and cohesiveness in these communities and the distrust toward other interest groups and outsiders. Subtlety, patience, and respect for local cultural, social, and political dynamics are key. One illustrative example is the practice of Yad Fon in Thailand to have an organizer spend enough time in a community to gain trust and understanding before initiating discussions about community management of coastal resources. This lower-key approach contrasts with the prevailing approach to reform of fisheries management, which has focused on national or regional decision-making. At the risk of stating the obvious or generalizing, community- based management is much more specific and personal, while most current efforts at fisheries management reform are abstracted and formal. Unlike the traditional fishermen’s organizations that have historically been created to protect the interests that most business lobbyists deal with (allocation, keeping regulations at a minimum, avoiding taxes, getting government price supports or loans), community-based groups we interviewed have more in common with community development/social action and environmental groups. They do have an economic interest, but they also have an interest in protecting the environment that supports and surrounds their home towns. We also found both here and abroad that CBFM activists and advocates were convinced that they had to identify and hold fast to shared goals and vision or they would fall back on the old habits of competition. The constitution and mission of their groups, they said, had to have standards and principles that went beyond economic viability or community development, and certainly beyond the regulatory standards of conventional fishery management, which many of the interviewees admitted invited bad behavior. These statements are not meant to suggest that the fishing communities most likely to benefit from CBFM do not have to engage in policy discussions at regional and national levels. Quite the contrary. If anything, the capacity of fishermen’s and affiliated organizations to engage effectively in these discussions requires strengthening. Many interviewees noted the facility and financial resources of large, well-capitalized fleets to negotiate the ropes of the regulatory system. The “deep pockets” of corporate interests were contrasted with local efforts that had to raise money from one person at a time to make a case at a council or legislature or with a management agency. The costs of organizing, capacity-building, advocacy, and just “showing up” are a signifi- cant challenge to CBFM. When this work must be done among isolated communities such as the outer islands of Maine or the towns along the Gulf of Alaska, the time commitment and financial burden are substantial. It is critical that managers in conventional settings—states, councils, NMFS—be brought along in their understanding and acceptance (or at least tolerance) of alternatives such as CBFM. Interviewees consistently pointed up resistance on the part of councils, regional managers, state managers and others in “the system” to allowing them to try their ideas. The adversarial relationship of regulator vs. regulated industry remains as the framework even in instances where activists have found a way to create management options. In one example, the CBFM group was allocated a set number of pounds of fish within the overall regulatory framework, which does not use a TAC, but rather days-at-sea and trip limits. Even though the CBFM group has a TAC, and it is fixed, and it is a tiny portion of the overall catch, and they will have to stop fishing when they reach it, managers were not willing to let them devise their own fishing operations, but were insisting that they comport with the days-at-sea and trip limit rules. Even after ten years of co-management of salmon following the Boldt Decision, the Northwest tribes had to sue to obtain rights to manage shell- fish according to the same rubric. The decade-long demonstration of cooperation with state managers did not overcome the resistance. Observers of the co-management system admit to residual bitterness even now, 30 years after Boldt. State and federal fisheries laws and institutions do not favor or foster CBFM. Nor do the people who work in this system. However, the federal fishery management plan process does provide some opportunity for applying CBFM in limited ways through so-called framework structures that identify general standards and processes for managing a fishery within which fishery managers may manage a fishery with some flexibility. In addition, fishery management councils do sometimes work in the manner they were intended and respond to local concerns and needs, such as sector allocations and setasides for collaborative research and coops and community quota entities. However, the transaction costs for these responses are high, and the complexity of the steps that have to be negotiated is legion. It takes a stout heart, a corps of lawyers, and buckets of money. The Gulf of Alaska effort we describe depended upon generous federal funding secured over many years through the intervention of Senator Ted Stevens. The Chatham fishermen’s association spent hundreds of thousands of foundation and individual donor dollars to carve out the sector allocation. This community activism does not come cheap. Even with fishermen’s organizations that are effective within government decision-making, small-scale fishing communities will remain vulnerable to decline and elimination, particularly if they remain divorced from the larger community. Rapid coastal development and a general lack of investment in research regarding coastal economies and communities, among other factors, have marginalized most fishing communities in the United States. One result of this marginalization is the difficulty in developing meaningful economic, social, and cultural profiles of fishing communities and their links to the larger community. Developing such profiles through collaboration among members of fishing communities and the broader community has proved to be an effective tool for obtaining this information and, as importantly, for reacquainting these communities with each other. Women can lead in strengthening connections with surrounding communities. Attend any scientific or regulatory meeting on fisheries and the participant composition will be overwhelmingly male. However, attend a fisheries meeting about community organizing, education, outreach, or making a plan for the future, and the participants will be overwhelmingly female. In describing the different communication styles of men and women, Deborah Tannen points out that women’s communication styles tend to strive for building networks, minimizing differences, finding commonality and reaching consensus. In contrast, men’s styles are more geared to establishing status, highlighting distinctions, telling others what to do.29 Whether it is communication style or just the fact that while men are out on the water fishing the women are in the community making connections through schools, churches, or civic affairs, CBFM appears to benefit tremendously from the activity of women. The Women’s Fishery Enhancement Association of Guysborough County, Nova Scotia put it this way: “A good discussion starts with women. Women’s history is essentially buried. This could change if this story is documented. This story could help others build on what was learned through our experience.” They found in their project that the factors that enabled them to take leadership, participate, and take collective action for community change were personal interest, adequate free time, access to transportation, location, family supports, and involvement of friends. Finally, one of the best arguments for grounding the management system in the values of the people closest to the waterfront is this idea, one last expression in their own words: “Top down means you are always working against the rules, figuring out how to get around them. Instead, we are asking what is better? Why? Does it meet our principles? That keeps us out of our own back pockets. If we are just thinking up the best answer, it’ll always be about ‘what’s best for me?’ But if we measure an idea against our principles, then we will come up with an answer that is best for the community, the fishery and the future.” Electronic copies of the complete report are available at www.cei.maine.org and paper copies are available from Coastal Enterprises, Inc., 2 Portland Fish Pier, Suite 201, Portland, Maine 04101 (207) 772-5356. |
