Some North Pacific Fishing Industry Perspectives on Rebuilding Merrick Burden Executive Director Marine Conservation Alliance

Stock rebuilding goals set by our FMCs are the result of policies designed around several tradeoffs If we expect good decisions, we must frame the policy tradeoffs and decision points appropriately The MSA and case law on rebuilding inform Councils on how to incorporate economics into rebuilding policies If scenarios exist which were not contemplated by available policy guidance we should identify them Can we identify ways to make our rebuilding plans more effective in economic terms?

A brief overview of what I’ll talk about…. Assumptions in the policy framework and case law about the economic factors at play when considering rebuilding Scenarios where those assumptions appear to break down The implications Some alternative ways to think about rebuilding if economics matter My presentation is not intended to question the appropriateness or need of rebuilding overfished stocks.

The MSA Our fisheries law is constructed around a relatively simplistic framework: – Basic view of population dynamics – Role of fisheries in impacting the status of the stock versus other, non-fishing factors – Single target species focus

In NRDC v Evans “…..the longer-term economic interests of fishing communities are aligned with the conservation goals set forth in the (Magnuson-Stevens) Act. Without immediate efforts at rebuilding depleted fisheries, the very long-term survival of those fishing communities is in doubt.” But is this statement made by the 9 th Circuit Court universally true?

Some confounding rebuilding scenarios that challenge the prior statement Time Considerations Extraordinary rebuilding times of several decades High levels of recruitment uncertainty Highly variable or episodic recruitment Non-target species When rebuilding a stock still won’t provide for a target fishery on that stock Effect of fishing is small compared to other factors Rebuilding success is largely exogenous to fishing effort Multi-species fishery effects Rebuilding stocks limit access to several other target stocks

Extraordinary rebuilding times will we see the benefit of a rebuilt stock?

Example is of Pribilof Blue King Crab stock projections under varying rebuilding alternatives Variations in catch matter little to the growth of this stock When fishing matters very little

Actual recruitment is highly variable, but our stock growth forecasts use an average recruitment estimate In this scenario, rebuilding success may be dependent upon a single episodic event, yet we tend to establish expectations and forecasts based upon the average In this case, do we set unrealistic expectations and then fault ourselves for failing to meet them?

Rebuilding in a multi-species fishery gets increasingly more expensive the faster you rebuild In a multi- species fishery, the initial reductions in catch of OFS can be done relatively easily. As reductions in catch grow, the cost of those reductions grows faster

Some other confounding scenarios When rebuilding doesn’t lead to a target fishery on that stock is it true that there is an economic benefit to rebuilding, especially in the case of a multi-species fishery? When recruitment events/levels are driven by environmental factors other than fishing, does it make sense to hold the fishery accountable for rebuilding success, or lack thereof?

What are the Implications?

In situations of long rebuilding times, rebuilding non- target stocks, and rebuilding in multi-species fisheries… Situations of extraordinarily long rebuilding times can be considered a net economic loss due to: – Discounting – Loss of fishery infrastructure that cannot be replaced Situations of non-target stocks and multi-species fisheries can often be considered a net economic loss because: – Cost of rebuilding can be several times higher than the value of the stock in question

In situations of highly variable recruitment events and when rebuilding success is exogenous to fishing mortality The FMCs and the fishing industry are largely held accountable for rebuilding success (e.g. 10 year rebuilding standard). If NOAA determines adequate rebuilding progress is not being made, often the fishing industry bears the cost via further fishing restrictions

Some alternative ways of thinking about rebuilding and framing the policy question for decision makers Allow the industry to change the encounter rate of overfished species: Give the industry tools which allow them to better avoid rebuilding stocks, like catch share programs Acknowledge episodic recruitment by framing policy decisions differently For instance, in episodic recruitment species the policy question might be better stated as how much more stock decline is okay until a successful recruitment event occurs. Policies enacted by the FMC can only affect the rate of that decline Acknowledge when rebuilding success, and the time under which rebuilding will occur, is largely outside the hands of fishery managers Acknowledge when economic benefits of rebuilding simply do not exist