Although overharvesting has dramatically reduced fish populations from Maine to Hawaii, management of America's coastal fisheries remains firmly in the hands of the commercial fishing industry, according to a report released today by the Stanford Fisheries Policy Project (SFPP). As a result, effective protection of marine fisheries in the United States has been undercut by a fundamentally flawed management system that has little public accountability and is riddled with potential financial conflicts of interest, according to the authors.

America’s commercial and recreational fisheries are regulated by eight regional councils whose members primarily come from the fishing industry itself. A new report by the Stanford Fisheries Policy Project urges major reform of the councils to avoid financial conflicts of interest and assure sustainability of America’s coastal fish stocks. Photo: JOEL PRADO/NOAA

"The oceans are among the nation's greatest natural resources, yet few Americans know who manages the nation's fisheries or how decisions affecting the sustainability of fisheries are made," said Law School Lecturer Josh Eagle, director of SFPP and co-author of the report. "With over a third of the nation's studied fish stocks overfished, and the status of many more uncertain, it is clear that we must apply standards of 'good government' to the management of America's fisheries and place the public's interest first."

Taking stock

"Taking Stock of the Regional Fisheries Management Councils" is the latest in a series of reports supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts on the state of America's marine environment. Other co-authors of the report are Barton H. "Buzz" Thompson Jr., vice dean of the Law School and the Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law, and former SFPP research fellow Sarah Newkirk.

In their report, the authors reviewed the mandates, constitution, rules and procedures of the Regional Fishery Management Councils ­ eight regional boards created by Congress under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage fisheries along the coasts of the United States. The eight councils ­ New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, North Pacific and Western Pacific ­ prepare and implement fishery management plans for the fish stocks in their regions.

The majority of voting members on each council is appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce from candidates nominated by the governors of each of the council's constituent states. Before submitting the list of nominees, the governor is required by federal law to "consult with commercial and recreational fishing interests of the state." There is no comparable requirement that appointees represent conservation interests or the public at large.

The authors found that since 1985, 80 to 90 percent of appointed council members have represented fishing interests. By contrast, New England is the only regional council that currently has a representative from a national conservation organization, Environmental Defense. A survey of members in four of the eight regional councils revealed that even many council members see the system as flawed.

"No nation gives its fishing industry as much authority to make large-scale decisions about fisheries conservation and management as the regional councils enjoy. ... And they are responsible for the health of a $25 billion commercial fishing industry and an even larger recreational fishing industry," according to the report.

Reforms

The authors noted that the eight councils have presided over the economic and biological decline of many fisheries, including cod in New England and rockfish off the Pacific coast, and that the councils are not likely to implement the kind of conservation-minded management necessary to reverse those trends and prevent future declines.

"Although the National Marine Fisheries Service within the U.S. Department of Commerce has oversight authority over the regional councils, NMFS in practice seldom rejects the councils' decisions," the authors found, and urged Congress to make the following basic reforms to the Magnuson-Stevens Act: