Session Topic
February 28- Managing for Multiple Uses: The thorny life of
a marine resource regulator
Click here to read the themes
raised by the panel discussion on February 28th
Panelists:
Ben Haskell, Management Plan Coordinator for Stellwagen Bank Marine
Sanctuary
Vin Malkoski, Senior marine fisheries biologist and coordinator of
the Environmental Review Program for Massachusetts Department of Marine
Fisheries
Steve Tucker, Coastal/Marine Resources Specialist, Cape Cod Commission
Background lecture: Trust; National Environmental
Protection Act and other mechanisms of governmental accountability
Summary: The people charged with managing marine resources
have the unenviable task of deciding how to pursue the law and serve
myriad stakeholders in the process. Their position places them in the
line of fire between conflicting interest, and they themselves often
come under attack from stakeholders or their proxies: congressional
representatives demanding answers or lawyers demanding a day in court.
Though they are meant to manage conflict and develop solutions, many
regulatory agencies are accused of fueling conflict. In this panel regulators
and marine resource managers from a variety of government agencies will
discuss the challenges in their work, their successes, and their visions
for the future.
Reading:
Dobbs, David. The Great Gulf: Fishermen, Scientists, and the Struggle
to Revive the World's Greatest Fishery. Shearwater Books, 2000. It's
a good idea to read this whole book to get an overview of the conflicts
over fisheries management in the Gulf of Maine, but read at least pages
51- 88.
Fukuyama, Francis. “Chapter 1: On the Human Situation at the
End of History” in Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation
of Prosperity. Free Press Paperbacks, 1995.
Multiple uses links:
Additional resources:
Hall-Arber, Madeleine and A. Christopher Finlayson, “The Role
of Local Institutions in Groundfish Policy,” in Boreman, J.S.
et. al., Editors. Northwest Atlantic Groundfish: Perspectives on a Fishery
Collapse, American Fisheries Society, 1997.
Lewicki, Roy J., Gray, B. and Elliott M. Making Sense of Intractable
Environmental Conflicts: Frames and Cases. Island Press, 2002.
Teacher resources:
“Bench-Pressing Issues: Exploring Topics that May Appear Before
the Supreme Court.” (note: you can adapt this to look at some
of the litigation we have discussed in class, appearing primarily in
federal district courts) New York Times Daily Lesson Plan, September
30, 2005 by Michelle Sale, The New York Times Learning Network, and
Javaid Khan, The Bank Street College of Education in New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20050930friday.html?searchpv=learning_lessons
“Strong Convictions: Learning to Write Persuasive Editorials
about Current News.” New York Times Daily Lesson Plan, July 24,
2003 by Clayton DeKorne, The New York Times Learning Network, and Tanya
Yasmin Chin, The Bank Street College of Education in New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20030724thursday.html?searchpv=learning_lessons
Themes from the February 28th session
on Managing for Multiple Uses
At each session, we note themes arising in the panel
discussion in four categories: problem definition, goals (individual,
organizational and for the process itself), sources of conflict, and
potential solutions. The list is meant to aid in further discussion
on the topic and is not meant to be exhaustive or definitive. The themes
are recorded by a volunteer from the enrolled students and auditors.
Themes noted with an asterisk (*) were added to the list by Saving Seas
instructor Tora Johnson drawing upon her notes on the discussion.
The Problem
Human versus environmental needs
Cumulative impacts of coastal alterations *while each proposal claims
little or no impact
Little data available, * especially on ecosystem impacts and cumulative
effects
Conflict between access versus preservation
Lack of public education and participation
Lack of trust
Lack of public pressure on government to act on ecosystem-wide scale
* Stakeholder groups too focused on single species or single issue,
not the wider view
* Environmental Impact Statement process increasingly bureaucratic &
lacks substance
* Regulators can't lead, can't "step out in front" unless
Congressional representatives are getting pressure from the public.
Goals
Resource protection, enforcing National and Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Acts
Collect longitudinal data
Foster trust
Sources of Conflict
Tension over human activities vs. resource protection
Resources are viewed as abstract
Competition among stakeholders for resources and financial benefit
Multiple "ideal" solutions
Regulator mentality versus planning mentality
Inadequate long-term monitoring leaves scientific uncertainty
Semantics and conflicting vocabularies
Lack of trust
Solutions
Ecosystem-level monitoring
Stakeholder participation in developing action plans
Habitat mapping
Education of public, stakeholders, and * between agencies
Coordination of regional and local planning efforts
Building trust
back to top
bulletin board