Source: NOAA Fisheries, 4/26/11

NOAA Fisheries released two reports today addressing serious issues in management and science in the northeast.

A management report, the preparation of which was led by Preston Pate noted that "Fisheries management in New England is beset with problems and challenges that are characteristic of fisheries management in general but may be even more acute in this area now due to concurrently changing factors of law, management programs, and economics."

At the New England Fishery Management Council meeting here today, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Eric Schwaab, announced specific steps the agency will take in response to the initial results and recommendations from an independent review of the fishery management process in New England. He also opened an informal 30-day public comment period on the report - A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process. Public comments are being collected online or via fax or mail. The deadline is May 27, 2011. Click on the links below for more information on the New England Fishery Management Review and the public comment process.

The report found the Northeast Regional Office of NOAA Fisheries to suffer from " a void in leadership, lack of clear direction on management priorities and philosophy, and poor collaboration with external partners." In addition, the report found that "Staff morale is declining. There is distrust from external stakeholders: There is distrust in the science. o There is distrust in the research funding process."

The report found that New England Fishery Managment Council staff "may have a tendency to take ownership of a plan and overstep their authority by guiding policy instead of supporting an objective review." The report found "pockets of low-performing Council staff." There were suggestions that staff have become complacent, and there may be no performance criteria or standards that staff must meet. The report also found that "Council governance is too complicated; there are too many committees and groups."

The management report found poor data management, with redundant data management activities and highly fragmented, ineffective, and overly burdensome systems.

The science report, prepared by Michael Sissenwine and Brian Rothschild found : "While NMFS has numerous outstanding scientists that conduct high quality research and provide sound scientific advice, our study found many problems." The report made four broad recommendations. The first recommendation is for a National framework for program reviews. The second recommendation is for a review of reviews to maximize the benefit from past reviews (as well as this review) of the science enterprise. The third recommendation concerns all aspects the management of the Agency's science enterprise. The fourth recommendation addresses the processes used to produce scientific advice to support management.

The results of a separate independent review focused on the agency's existing science programs was also released at the meeting. 

Click here for more information.