Assessing Equity in the
Distribution of Fisheries
Management Benefits

Data and Information Availability

_____

Committee on Assessing Equity in the
Distribution of Fisheries Management
Benefits: Data and Information Availability

Ocean Studies Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-71189-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-71189-4
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27313

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Assessing Equity in the Distribution of Fisheries Management Benefits: Data and Information Availability. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27313.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON ASSESSING EQUITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT BENEFITS

THOMAS J. MILLER (Chair), Professor of Fisheries Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

LISA M. CAMPBELL, Rachel Carson Distinguished Professor of Marine Affairs and Policy, Duke University

RACHEL DONKERSLOOT, Consultant, Coastal Cultures Research

KAILIN KROETZ, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University

GRANT MURRAY, Associate Professor of Marine Policy, Duke University

MATTHEW REIMER, Associate Professor, University of California, Davis

JAMES N. SANCHIRICO, Professor of Natural Resource Economics and Policy, University of California, Davis

STEVEN SCYPHERS, Associate Professor of Marine & Environmental Sciences and Sociology, University of South Alabama

RASHID SUMAILA, University Killam Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of British Columbia

Study Staff

SUSAN ROBERTS, Ocean Studies Board Director

CONSTANCE KARRAS, Study Director

LEIGHANN MARTIN, Associate Program Officer

ERIK YANISKO, Program Assistant (until January 2024)

This page intentionally left blank.

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by CYNTHIA JONES, Old Dominion University, and BONNIE McCAY (NAS), Rutgers University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

This page intentionally left blank.

Preface

Ten years ago, at a talk celebrating the opening of a new academic building, I lamented that we were basically using the same techniques to understand the marine environment that were used on HMS Challenger in 1872. That is no longer the case. From the fields of genetics to remote observation, new scientific instrumentation and techniques are changing how we sample, measure, and understand the marine environment. We can “fathom the ocean” in ways about which the pioneers described in Helen Rozwadowski’s book by that name could only wonder. The sea is less opaque to us now.

Accompanying these advances, fisheries management in the United States has had to address the question: “Who benefits from fishery management decisions?” How does answering that question affect the management decisions? What is an equitable decision? Initially, these discussions were mostly about allocations among sectors—for example, inshore versus offshore, commercial versus recreational. These discussions were sharpened with the advent of limited access privilege programs that assign rights to a permit to fish. Allocating these rights are explicit decisions about who should benefit.

In May 2023, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a final, national equity and environmental justice strategy, which clearly articulates NMFS’s aim to serve all communities equitably and effectively. The strategy’s stated goals are to “(1) Prioritize identification, equitable treatment and meaningful involvement of underserved communities; (2) Provide equitable delivery of services; and (3) Prioritize equity and environmental justice in meeting its mandated mission.”¹ To achieve these goals, the strategy includes the following objectives²:

___________________

¹ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Fisheries. 2023. Equity and environmental justice strategy. See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-05/NOAA-Fisheries-EEJ-Strategy-Final.pdf. P. 2.

² National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Fisheries. 2023, May 22. NOAA Fisheries releases final equity and environmental justice strategy. See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaa-fisheries-releases-final-equity-and-environmental-justice-strategy. Para. 3.

• Provide an empowering environment within our agency to support multiple equity and environmental justice approaches
• Incorporate equity and environmental justice in our agency policies and plans
• Achieve equity in research and researching equity
• Outreach and engage equitably
• Equitably distribute benefits
• Ensure inclusive governance

In the spirit of these objectives and goals, and as evidence of its commitment to furthering equity in its decision-making, NMFS approached the National Academies to conduct this consensus study, which considers the data and information needs for assessing equity in the distribution of fisheries management benefits. In addition to the present study, NMFS has already expressed intent to fund a second study that may examine fisheries management benefits within select, illustrative fisheries. Unlike some studies conducted by the National Academies, neither this study nor the proposed follow-up was congressionally mandated. The committee applauds NMFS for proactively approaching the National Academies with these requests and for being receptive to input on these complex issues.

This committee’s report does not provide simple answers; as has become clear through our process, equity is not a simple concept, and thus its measurement and assessment are not straightforward either. Instead, equity is multidimensional. Collecting information to shed light on the multiple facets of equity in fisheries management is made more challenging by obstacles, including both policy and practical considerations. The committee acknowledges these challenges and encourages persistence in the furtherance of understanding despite them.

As chair, I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of my fellow committee members. The committee was composed of individuals with diverse regional and disciplinary expertise, who worked in concert to develop a thorough and thoughtful report that reflects their commitment of time, energy, and insight. Their insights were complemented by those shared during our public, open-session meetings, and we also extend our gratitude to the invited speakers and other participants for their valuable contributions.

Thomas Miller, Chair

Committee on Assessing Equity in the Distribution of Fisheries Management Benefits: Data and Information Availability

Acknowledgments

The committee thanks the following individuals for their contributions during the study process, especially for enriching and informing the discussions at its open-session meetings: Leif Anderson (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]), Courtney Carothers (University of Alaska Fairbanks), Lisa Colburn (NOAA), Rachel Feeney (New England Fishery Management Council [NEFMC]), Benjamin Fissel (NOAA), Lindsay Fullenkamp (NOAA), Brian Garber-Yonts (NOAA), Kate Haapala (North Pacific Fishery Management Council [NPFMC]), Gretchen Harrington (NOAA), Justin Hospital (NOAA), Min-Yang Lee (NOAA), Frank Lockhart (NOAA), Sarah Malloy (NOAA), Sarah Marrinan (NPFMC), Bonnie McCay (Rutgers University), José L. Montañez (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council), Michael Pentony (NOAA), Carrie Pomeroy (University of California, Santa Cruz), Naresh Pradhan (NEFMC), Jennifer Silver (University of Guelph), Kitty Simonds (Western Pacific Fishery Management Council [WPFMC]), Dale Squires (NOAA), Josh Stoll (University of Maine), Andy Strelcheck (NOAA), Marysia Szymkowiak (NOAA), Adrienne Thomas (NOAA), Michael Travis (NOAA), Christina Wiegand (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council), and Zach Yamada (WPFMC). Their input was critical to the completion of the committee’s work.

The committee would also like to thank our primary contacts at NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Lindsay Fullenkamp and Caroline Potter, for their efforts in developing and sponsoring this study and for providing important documents and support upon the committee’s request.

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

PREFACE

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

Benefits to the Nation from Fisheries

Structure of the Report

2 THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE MANDATE FOR EQUITY

What Is Equity?

Criteria and Subjects

NMFS Mandate for Equity

Examples of Equity Considerations in Fisheries

Findings and Recommendation

3 DISTRIBUTIONAL EQUITY OF FISHERY PERMIT AND ALLOCATION BENEFITS

A Stylized Model Fishery

Moving Beyond the Stylized Model Fishery

Methodology

Regional Examples

Measurement of Categories of Data and Information

Obstacles in Data and Information Collection and Measurement

What Can NMFS Do Now?

Findings and Recommendations

4 BENEFICIARIES OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Common Categories of Beneficiaries

Potential Beneficiaries

Findings and Recommendations

5 NEXT STEPS AND CURRENT EFFORTS FOR ASSESSING EQUITY

Challenges to Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Equity

Measuring What Is Valued or Valuing What Is Measured

A Note on Epistemology

Moving Forward: Recent Advances in Improving Equity in Management

Learning from Recent Work to Improve NMFS’s Integration of Equity in Management

Findings and Recommendations

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

A PUBLIC MEETING AGENDAS

B COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHIES

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

S-1 Statement of Task

S-2 Select Relevant National Standards

1-1 Statement of Task

1-2 Report Terminology

2-1 Example Criteria and Principles for Distributional Equity

2-2 Selected Executive Orders, Policy Documents, and Technical Guidance Documents Related to Equity in Fisheries

2-3 National Standards

3-1 Community Development Quota Program in Western Alaska

5-1 Lessons from Integrating Equity into Marine Conservation

5-2 Guidelines Produced by the North Pacific Fishery Management Councils Local Knowledge, Traditional Knowledge, and Subsistence Information Taskforce

FIGURES

S-1 Key components of multidimensional equity

2-1 Key components of multidimensional equity

2-2 Dimensions, subjects, and criteria for equity

2-3 Simplified schematic of fishery management in the United States

3-1 North Pacific beneficiaries

3-2 Environmental equity and justice indicators for fishing communities in the Mid-Atlantic, produced by the Community Social Vulnerability Indicators Toolbox of the National Marine Fisheries Service

4-1 Fisheries social-ecological systems

TABLES

3-1 Principal Fisheries of the Northeast United States Overseen by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

3-2 Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Performance Indicators

3-3 Permits and Licenses Issued in Alaska by the National Marine Fisheries Service

4-1 An Example Scheme for Categorizing Potential Beneficiaries

5-1 Examples of Questions About the Fisheries Human System Relevant to MLMA Socioeconomic Objectives

5-2 Principles of Equitable Governance

5-3 An Illustration of the Site-Level Assessment of Governance and Equity (SAGE) Methodology

Acronyms and Abbreviations