Evaluating the use of social impact assessment in Northeast US federal fisheries management

Abstract

This analysis of Northeast US federal fisheries management focused on how social data have been collected and incorporated. Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 45 primary informants was augmented with secondary data. Results showed that the social factors of Northeast US federal fisheries are considered important, and that participation in and processes involved with collecting and incorporating social data have improved over time. Nonetheless, progress is still necessary to ensure that managers have the information necessary to understand how fishermen and fishing communities might be impacted by decisions. Managers tend rely on perception and public comment, rather than social impact assessment (SIA) documents. A number of steps are being taken to improve data collection, analysis, and use. Similar challenges exist nation-wide, but dialogue among providers of SIAs is elevating the quality and consistency of products. Where social scientists are engaged early and consistently, fostering the consideration of human dimensions in the design of measures in a participatory and iterative manner, both the SIA process and product are most valuable.

Keywords::

• fisheries management
• social impact assessment
• grounded theory
• northeast USA

Introduction

For fishery managers, understanding the implications of their decisions on fishermen and fishing communities can be a daunting task. Consideration of the social impacts of environmental regulations has, to varying degrees, existed globally for decades (e.g. Buck 1995; Burdge & Vanclay 1996), but since the 1970s, the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA 1970) and other NEPA-like legislation internationally has formalized the inclusion of social impact assessments (SIAs) into decision processes. The importance of accounting for the impact of government actions on society goes beyond legal arguments, however. The people and communities who study, manage and use marine resources are integral, dynamic, and complex components of marine ecosystems. Thus, there must be a scientifically sound understanding of the human dimensions of fisheries management, in addition to the biological and ecological aspects.

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) creates regulations for fisheries in federal waters from the Gulf of Maine to Southern New England, through a public participatory process (NEFMC 2013). Fishery management plans are then approved and administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which has implemented NEPA and other federal requirements to consider social impacts, by ensuring that SIAs are included in plan documentation. Abbott-Jamieson and Clay (2010) provide a thorough review of the origins and capacity development of NMFS to provide social analysis for management plans. Until 2001, there was just one non-economic social scientist at NMFS national headquarters making policy recommendations and reviewing all plan documents developed by all eight regional Councils. There are now non-economic social scientists on staff at three Councils and in all NMFS regions.

There has been much evolution in how SIAs are defined, carried out and applied to natural resource decision-making. The first NMFS guidance for writing SIAs was formalized in 1989, based on the principles and recommendations forwarded by the International Association for Impact Assessments (IAIA), formed in 1980 as a forum to promote impact assessment best practices (IAIA 2013). Recognizing the need for a more consistent approach among agencies, the US Interorganizational Committee defined the SIA in 1993, in part, as: ‘efforts to assess or estimate, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions … and specific government actions’ (IOCGP 1994).

By its narrowest definition, as outlined in the latest interpretation of NMFS guidance (2007), the SIA is that component of the of the environmental impact assessment that describes the areas or populations (e.g. fishing communities, fishermen, fleets using particular gears or targeting particular species) potentially affected by a regulatory action, and projects future change under the status quo and alternative measures being considered. The guidance outlines a three-step process for writing SIAs used in fishery management plans: (1) create regional and fishing community profiles; (2) conduct a social factor analysis of the status quo and management alternatives (i.e. baseline study); and (3) compare the anticipated change in social variable between the status quo and management alternatives. Consistent with NMFS guidance, the term ‘social’ is used here to refer to variables such as: demographics, fishery dependence, safety, public involvement, equity, cultural values and the well-being of participants, their families and fishing communities (NMFS 2007).

The international community, also under the auspices of the IAIA, has recognized that the NEPA-centred approach to SIA work is not necessarily appropriate globally (Vanclay 2003). The ‘International Principles for Social Impact Assessment’, developed concurrently with the work of the Interorganizational Committee, emphasized the importance of process, in addition to product, that an SIA should not just be a one-time project in advance of an action, but should proactively develop goal-oriented, community-driven solutions for sustainable development (Vanclay 2006).

Documented here is a recent analysis of how social data has been collected and used in the management of northeast US federal fishery resources. The focus was on whether and how the SIA product, as outlined by NMFS guidance, has been effective at helping mangers understand the implications of their decisions. Fishery managers, support staff and social scientists were queried to identify how far SIA work has come in recent decades and distil lessons learned. Outcomes can be used as a spring-board to define challenges, better manage public resources, and advance the field of SIA work.

Research questions

There were four over-arching areas of inquiry within which the following primary questions were investigated:

• Participation – who has been involved with collecting, analysing, and using social data for fisheries management? Should others be involved that are not already?

• Content – what data are used in SIAs to describe social impacts? How are the data analysed? What are the data gaps?

• Process – how have SIAs been incorporated into decision-making? Are there other ways that mangers learn about potential impacts?

• Communication – how can information about social impacts be better organized and communicated for increased utility by managers and the public?

Methods

Grounded theory methods were used in this inquiry (Charmaz 2006), an iterative process of question selection, purposive interviews, data coding, tentative theory generation, question refinement, additional interviews, code and theory refinement, and synthesis of conclusions. Semi-structured interviews with primary informants were conducted between March and July 2012 simultaneous with transcribing, sorting, and synthesizing data. Study of early data illuminated areas to explore through subsequent data collection and analysis.

Primary informants (n = 45) were diverse stakeholders involved in either the creation or use of fisheries social data. Of these, 76% (n = 34) are directly engaged in New England Fishery Management Council management processes, including:

• nine members of the NEFMC from state, industry and non-profit arenas;

• nine NEFMC staff who serve as fishery plan coordinators; and

• 16 NMFS or academic social scientists who have developed or reviewed SIAs.

To contextualize the New England case, 11 informants were queried from each of the seven other US Fishery Council regions. Informants were selected purposively and through a ‘snowball’ approach. Within each informant category (manager, staff, scientist), sampling proceeded until either 100% of the population category was interviewed or theoretical saturation was reached (Corbin & Strauss 2008).

Secondary data sources supplemented the interviews, many of which were referred to by informants, including: proceedings of the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum (FLSF 2012), minutes of the NEFMC, National Marine Fisheries Service policy documents, fishery management plans, and secondary informants (n = 10), who were asked individual questions.

Data analysis followed standard grounded theory practices (Miles & Huberman 1994; Bazeley 2007). Interview transcripts, email correspondence, and relevant literature were sorted and coded using QSR NVivo 9 software. Chains of evidence were built where several informants emphasized an issue, logical relationships could be plotted and claims could be verified and refined. Feedback from informants was used to confirm the validity of results as they emerged throughout analysis.

Results

The dominant themes in the data are that social impacts of fisheries management are important to informants, and that the participation of social scientists and the use of social data in the fishery plan development process have gradually improved over time. However, informants could cite few instances when SIA analyses had been cited by New England Fishery Management Council members in making decisions. The abundant opportunities for public comment throughout the development of actions help the consideration of social issues to be infused throughout the process, beyond the SIA product. Results are presented here according to the four over-arching areas of inquiry: participation, content, process, and communication, with largely qualitative descriptions of informant input.

Participation

Historical perspective

Understanding has progressively increased about the need to consider the social consequences of policies and programmes. Finalized in 1985 by the NEFMC, 15 years post-NEPA, the original Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP; e.g. cod, haddock) was perhaps the first FMP in the country to contain an SIA. During the present inquiry, informants recalled this SIA as limited in scope, given that the National Marine Fisheries Service had directed the analyst to not collect new data, but to use what existed in published works.

The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act elevated the importance of defining fishing communities and identifying potential impacts on fishery participants. A new standard required that measures shall ‘provide for the sustained participation’ of and ‘to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts’ to fishing communities (SFA 1996). The SFA helped propel the growth of social sciences within NMFS, and by the end of the 1990s, a non-economic social science programme was formed within the Office of Science and Technology at NMFS Headquarters. With FY2001 funding to support SFA implementation, NMFS Regional Science Centers were able to increase their non-economic social staff capacity (Abbott-Jamieson & Clay 2010).

SIA tasking

Ultimately, the decision of who creates an SIA is a negotiation between administrators of the NEFMC and NMFS in the Northeast Region. Participation has varied across time. NMFS provides analytical support for both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils, and there has not always been enough staff to cover all the required analyses. Generally, NMFS has focused on supporting the major actions. When NMFS staff have been unavailable, external social science contractors have been used.

In a few cases, NMFS or NEFMC staff members without significant SIA training have been tasked with SIA work. Of the NEFMC staff members interviewed, five had written SIAs since the mid-1990s when a social scientist was unavailable. Several NEFMC staff members who serve as fishery plan coordinators attended a workshop on writing SIAs that NMFS conducted in the early 2000s, leaving with a greater appreciation for the data and analyses that would improve SIAs. Ultimately, they did not have the time or expertise to collect social data or write the SIAs as idealized. They needed the help of social scientists.

Informants expressed the opinion that the extent to which social impacts are considered in management depends on whether or not there are social scientists engaged in designing alternatives, in addition to just writing the SIA. However, social science has been underrepresented in the ‘front-end’ of the process. Although the NEFMC has been developing plans since 1982, social analysts did not sit on technical plan development teams until after 2000, with one exception. Instead, they were usually called to write an SIA in a narrow timeframe after the range of management alternatives was decided. Several informants were encouraged that the recent hiring of a social impact analyst (2012) by the NEFMC could help improve SIA efforts.

As of 2012, there were five non-economic NMFS social scientists (3.5 staff and one contractor) in the northeast. Informants indicated that, ideally, there would be a social scientist assigned to cover all the major FMP actions. NMFS social scientists are balancing service on technical teams with research and systematic data collection systems so that future SIAs can improve. There is little room for hiring within the current budget climate.

NEFMC advisory bodies

In 1988, the NEFMC created the Social Sciences Advisory Committee (SSAC) to integrate social and economic analysis into all stages of fisheries policy development, including evaluation of SIAs (SSAC 1999). The SSAC comprised an even split of economic and non-economic social scientists primarily from academic and other non-governmental entities. Informants who sat on the SSAC recalled some early debate and tension within the group about its proper role. Some felt that the SSAC should be involved with approving SIAs, while others were concerned that, if so, the SSAC might morph into a politicized, policy-making body in which the spirit of peer-review and objectivity would be compromised. At its first meeting, the SSAC was given terms of reference by the NEFMC to review the social and economic analyses for two management actions, but the SSAC hesitated, as one informant recalled, because ‘they didn't want to stop actions from going forward if they thought it [the SIA] was inadequate’. A few informants suggested that the refusal to review SIAs was a missed opportunity. Subsequently, the SSAC struggled to find its purpose and gain traction. Members of the SSAC were not reimbursed for their time or travel, and the academicians had to fit this service around full teaching and research schedules. This caused a high turn-over rate. Also, there was never sufficient time between SIA completion and NEFMC decision-making to give analyses adequate review.

By 2008, the SSAC had been disbanded, in favour of appointing social scientists to the existing Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) (Howard 2008). Merging the SSAC with the SSC was deemed consistent with how most other US Fishery Councils structure their SSCs. Of the four current social science SSC members, three were informants for this review. They all indicated that service on the SSC is another means of incorporating social and economic considerations, beyond the SIA. The primary charge of the SSC, since new legal mandates in 2007, is to play an integral role in setting catch limits with buffers for scientific and management uncertainty. A buffer is a type of trade-off between reducing the probability of overfishing in the long term and increasing short-term costs to communities. One informant described the buffer as a ‘risk tolerance question’, that seems like a biological issue, but is really social in nature. Some NEFMC member informants (n = 3) wished that the SSC would have social and economic terms of reference more regularly. It is the NEFMC leadership that drives the SSC agenda, although SSC members can request agenda items. None of the informants expressed a desire to separate the social scientists from biologists, returning to a format akin to the SSAC.

Content

Guidance documents

Several informants who write SIAs or coordinate FMPs indicated that they have not been able to follow NMFS guidance (NMFS 2007) fully, given the time and resources that would be required to update fishery profiles, conduct social factor analyses, and write impact assessments that forecast social impacts of the status quo and management alternatives. NMFS guidance has not been well distributed among those who have been assigned to write SIAs or coordinate FMPs; eight such informants had not heard of the document when questioned.

Realizing the need for a more practical guide, a NMFS team has been collaborating for the past few years to create a best practices manual that would complement the guidance. Informants identified several aspects of the SIA guidance that such a manual might help clarify. These include the frequency with which background sections should be updated and the essential variables that should be analysed, given inevitable time and resource constraints. A suggestion was made that NMFS maintain just one ‘go-to’ reference for SIA practitioners, rather than create a manual in addition to the guidance.

Fishing community profiles

Within New England, the experience of writing the first SIA for fishery plans elevated the need for more background data about fishing communities. Missing were data on community dependence on a fishery and change over time. Thus, academic and industry stakeholders collaborated to profile 39 New England fishing communities (Hall-Arber et al. 2001). The profiles were finalized just before the 2000 US Census Bureau figures became available, so they were almost immediately outdated. However, these profiles were a significant improvement, and informants said that the method was considered a national model. Informants recalled that, at the time, NMFS was planning efforts to develop indicators and methods for identifying fishing communities and began a concerted national programme to obtain comparable data cross-regionally. NMFS led a project to create profiles for 177 communities from Maine to North Carolina that was completed in 2005 (Colburn et al. 2010) and later posted to the NMFS website (NEFSC 2013).

Other data sources

Most northeast informants (74%) spoke of there still being very little social data available for decision-making. No one said that there is a sufficient amount of social data, but some said that the fisheries vary in the level of data available, and that currently available data could be used more effectively. Sources of social information that informants have used in SIAs are listed in Table 1. It is fairly straightforward to obtain a limited subset of fishery demographics (e.g. number of permit holders, where they live and where they land fish, age of captains) and a sense of the historical dependence of communities on a fishery. It is much more time and resource intensive to obtain representative data on variables such as number, age and residency of crew, attitudes, health, safety and fishery organization. Estimating employment in particular fisheries has been difficult.

Table 1 Sources of social data cited to create SIAs.

Frequency cited	Information source
29%	NMFS data (e.g. fishery observer or dealer data)
27%	Stakeholder interviews (e.g. fishermen or fish processors)
17%	US Census Bureau data
15%	Public comments at NEFMC meetings
6%	Content of economic analyses
4%	Literature review
2%	Stakeholder websites

Note: Responses provided by 20 northeast informants are grouped into these general categories. Responses from 14 informants fell into more than one category.

Several challenges with data collection were expressed. NMFS had planned to update its fishing community profiles every three to five years, but there has been a lack of necessary funding and staff resources. There has also been little funding available for travel to collect interview data. NEFMC staff have wished to do more data collection, but have at times been uncertain about what constraints exist or the clearances that would be required. Care is necessary when using interview and public comment data to ensure that the spectrum of viewpoints is represented and commenters are honest. Informants said that sometimes fishermen do not want to provide social data about themselves. As one NMFS informant lamented,

Data gaps? Everything. You've read the community profiles. Everybody that I know has a love/hate relationship with them. People are very grateful to have them, but they are extremely limited in terms of content.

Recognizing the need for better social data, NMFS is developing several tools to increase the data available, the combination of which should give a better sense of the state of communities and potential impacts. One of the first NMFS social databases is under construction (Jepson & Colburn 2013), which will have indicators of fishery dependence for 2900 coastal fishing communities in the eastern US available online. Nationally, NMFS is developing a suite of fishery performance indicators to guide standardized data collection for all federal fisheries (NEFSC 2013).

NMFS is now administering fishermen surveys to increase data available. The ‘Annual Cost Survey’ is being administered to 1600 northeast commercial fishing vessel owners on a systematic basis, as a reinvention of a cost survey in 2006, 2007 and 2008 that suffered from low response rates. The ‘Socioeconomic Survey of Crew and Owners’ is randomly sampling 1000 owners and 1500 crew members across all northeast fisheries. The survey of ‘Social Capital and Attitudes toward Management in the New England Groundfish Fishery’ was conducted in spring of 2010 (Holland et al. 2010), and a follow-up survey will measure change relative to subsequent management programme changes (NEFSC 2013).

Informants stressed that informed fisheries management requires regular, coordinated reporting on the social and economic status of the industry. There have been separate initiatives in recent years by the NEFMC and within NMFS to accomplish this, and informants pointed out some inefficiency with this approach, suggesting that these entities should coordinate reporting on fishery performance that results in a stand-alone, ‘go-to’ reference for each fishery that is updated annually and made available to the public.

Data analysis

Approaches to social data analysis for fishery actions have been as diverse as the professionals conducting them. People have used the variables, analytical tools and writing techniques that have been accessible and familiar. How individuals execute SIA work has been up to their own discretion. When time constraints have limited data collection, the most common approach has been to take economic analysis and simply state that a projected change in fishery revenue would be proportional and causal of social change, which is not necessarily the case.

Even with the best social data, informants cautioned that predictions will always have a degree of guesswork. It is difficult to know what choices fishermen will make in the midst of future realities, switching target fisheries or changing their business plan. Predicting how many fishermen would choose measures that would be optional has been very difficult. It is easier to predict impacts when fisheries are smaller or have simpler management programmes. Deep familiarity with the fishing communities and the individuals involved in a fishery can help, and literature review can reveal results of similar actions in other fisheries, which may illuminate the issues at hand. Confidentiality requirements restrict reporting publically certain data on ports or fisheries with three or fewer vessels or dealers, but this can hamper adequate description of smaller harbours. For larger harbours, data averaging does not allow examination of spectrum ends.

SIA documentation

In general, more data is being included in SIAs today than when they were first conducted, because there are more data available and more efforts are directed at defining potential social impacts. A common theme expressed by informants was that the documents could still improve in terms of the quality of analysis and the accessibility of information. Several informants felt that plan documents are getting too lengthy and cumbersome, the outcome of an increasingly complex management process. Environmental Impact Statements containing SIAs can be well over 1000 pages long. Informants wished for greater succinctness to simplify and serve the public more effectively. Some informants who are plan coordinators said that they sometimes defer to the SIA writer on decisions about SIA content, noting that, while some SIAs have been excellent social research, they did not fully meet the management action needs.

SIA review

Essential to the management process are the reviews of fishery plan documents that NMFS conducts to ensure that legal requirements are met. Until recently, a social scientist at NMFS Headquarters reviewed all SIAs, but now all reviews occur within NMFS regional offices, conducted primarily by staff without social science expertise. Some reviewers have objected to inclusion of certain social analyses, and informants who write SIAs have perceived this as due to a misunderstanding of social science. Feedback might be improved if a social scientist was brought into the NMFS review team. As submitted, SIAs have generally been considered legally sufficient by reviewers, and just one instance was recalled where a draft document was rejected because of an inadequate SIA. They also noted that the required document structure can make inserting a cohesive SIA difficult; the descriptive strength and sense of cumulative impacts can be lost as a result. Informants were unclear what standard is used when approving SIAs.

Process

A theme expressed broadly by informants was that the fisheries management process would be improved if more stakeholders, staff, and decision-makers were better informed about the fisheries and the implications of decisions that need to be made. Informants were asked about if and when social impacts are considered in the management process, and their responses could be grouped into five general bins (Table 2), but most said that social impacts are considered primarily as final decisions are being made. At New England Fishery Management Council meetings, there is much discussion of how measures might affect communities, but it is more based on perception and public comment than on data that have been scientifically collected. Council members use their own background knowledge, and cogitate on various forms of social input. Relying on an intuitive approach can be problematic though, as the lack of systematic data presentation and analysis can lead to regulations with unintended consequences.

Table 2 When are social impacts considered by the NEFMC?

Frequency cited	Response
35%	Social impacts are considered towards the end of the process when final decisions are being made, particularly from a technical perspective. Generally, there is little social data in document drafts until all the alternatives are fleshed out and the draft is complete. It is not usually until the economic analysis is drafted that social analysis are completed
26%	Social impacts do not really get considered in the management process. Quite often, the quality and quantity of social data available are not very good, and the NEFMC does not know how to factor social analysis into decisions
24%	Social impacts are considered on an ad hoc basis throughout the development of an action. Public comments are ‘ubiquitous’ and ‘infused’ in the process. NEFMC members cogitate on social issues implicitly, based on their background knowledge, perceptions and public comment. Discussions are often focused on how measures might impact people
9%	Consideration of social information depends on the fishery, whether there is a non-economic social scientist assigned to the technical team and how actively they contribute. Discussions are often dominated by biological issues, but leaders can help by facilitating social science input
6%	Informant was unsure, because they either do not closely engage with the management process or are new to the region

Note: Responses provided by 34 northeast informants are grouped into these general categories.

Role of public comment

The management process involves complex iterations between Councils, their committees and plan development teams, and NMFS, with many opportunities for public input along the way. Public scoping that occurs at the beginning of a plan amendment process has been a helpful first step for informants in gauging stakeholder views on management issues and potential impacts to investigate further throughout the development of the action. A few informants noted that there seems to be declining public participation in scoping meetings, which are rather formal, and that scoping comments should be used with caution, because they may not be representative of the spectrum of stakeholder views, owing to low attendance or the hesitation by some to speak on the record. It was recommended that the expert assigned to write the SIA attend these early meetings to get a sense of the issues and constituents. Public input from scoping has been better used when analysed thematically, preferably supplemented with interviews.

Many informants talked about the influence of public comment in decision-making. It was observed that Council meetings in the 1990s were filled with fishermen, but today, just a handful of vessel owners and paid representatives attend. A NEFMC member was glad that meetings are now broadcast over the internet to increase accessibility, and has been relieved that it has not caused a significant decline in attendance, probably because the public may only provide oral comment in person. A NEFMC committee chair said that he could accommodate more of the public who want to comment at committee meetings, but public attendance is fairly low. He already knows the input of the ‘usual suspects’. Another NEFMC member stated that public comment is particularly influential just prior to a final vote.

Role of the SIA

A majority of northeast informants (62%), including some NEFMC members, said that decision-makers tend not to read SIAs and few read an entire plan document. People have many responsibilities in addition to service on the NEFMC and can be overwhelmed with reading material, particularly when meetings are back-to-back. With so much to read, informants said that they are ‘weary’ by the time they get to the SIA. As social considerations are included in early drafts, there is greater likelihood that NEFMC members read them. Where members do focus their attention is on the shorter decision document summaries, so it is important to include social information in them.

Managers have struggled with how to weigh potential social impacts against biological impacts of decisions. The U.S. National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management require that the consideration of ‘the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities … not compromise the achievement of conservation requirements (MSFCMA 2007)’. Because most New England fisheries are under stock rebuilding programmes, managers are thus usually forced to focus on the biological and ecological implications of their decisions. The management paradigm stemming from the National Standards has not fostered systematic social data collection and analysis, eventhough fisheries management ultimately regulates human interaction with the marine environment: who can fish for what, how much, where and when.

Communication

Decision-maker learning

Individuals selected to sit on the NEFMC already have a substantial amount of knowledge and experience with northeast fisheries, but informants shared that Council members and the public could be better educated about the historic and current state of fishing communities for better decision-making. NEFMC members tend to learn of potential social impacts more from stakeholder input than by reading SIAs (Table 3). Given how much information NEFMC members must assimilate, simply getting them to read longer SIAs is problematic. Creative ways must be used to inform them. One suggested that this education occur in small bits over time, or through website links, rather than providing lengthy reports that might not get read.

Table 3 How do NEFMC members learn of potential social impacts?

Frequency cited	Response
18%	Conversations with stakeholders informally
18%	Stakeholder comments made at public meetings
16%	Personal perceptions, knowledge, and experience
8.9%	Reading fishery plan documents (SIAs)
8.9%	Presentations by NEMFC staff and social scientists
1.8%	Industry newspapers
16%	They do not try to learn of potential social impacts
13%	Do not know/no response

Note: Responses provided by all 34 northeast informants are grouped into these general categories. Responses from 11 informants fell into more than one category.

Internet resources

Many of the northeast informants (n = 13) spoke of how the internet could be a means to better communicate social data about fishing communities, particularly through the NEFMC and NMFS websites (NEFMC 2013; NEFSC 2013). These websites can be a resource for improving awareness of ports and the status of fisheries, benefiting the NEFMC and the public. Industry informants said that it is the younger fishermen who tend to use the internet more; it is a last resource for older fishermen. A key challenge with websites is keeping them current; a website with outdated content can reflect poorly on an organization, so website maintenance plans are essential.

Informants wished that the NEFMC website would describe New England fishing communities and management processes, for example, the steps that an action goes through and what sort of analyses are done. Pages could describe the fisheries (e.g. gear types, communities, participants, revenue generated). There could be links to sites of stakeholder groups, although care would be needed to ensure that links represent a balance of views and that providing a link does not necessarily imply endorsement. Informants suggested that a comment form be developed for getting coast-wide feedback or to have key informants in communities give input.

Recognizing that the web could serve as a useful portal for the public to learn of social data and products, an overhaul of the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Social Sciences Branch (SSB) website was completed during the summer of 2012. Community-level data is now more accessible, enabling the user to pull data and create maps and cluster analyses. Staff are working to create fishing community snapshots, three page or less visual pieces that highlight key points of the longer community profiles that were produced in 2005. The snapshots will be automatically updated by just updating the supporting database. Since several informants expressed the opinion that the SSB has been a bit of a ‘black box’ (e.g. the community profiles were difficult to find), the website overhaul will probably improve communication and understanding considerably.

Example SIAs

NEFMC member informants (n = 9) were specifically asked to recall the effectiveness of specific SIAs. The majority (n = 5) said that most of the time, it feels like there are no social analyses, but there tends to be better information available about the minor fisheries, such as whiting or skate. When the whiting plan was created in 2000, one NEFMC member recalled that staff made a serious attempt to understand and explain the fishery to the NEFMC, which resulted in a ‘good amendment’ that ‘they haven't had to do much with, because we actually did something that worked’.

The SIA for Amendment 15 to the scallop plan (NEFMC 2010), developed with an anthropologist on the plan development team, was particularly impactful according to six informants. The action considered options to allow multiple permits to be used on one vessel and for quota to be leased. The SIA included a large literature review of evidence of consolidation in other fisheries with similar measures. The potential impacts to single-boat owners and larger corporations were identified. The review completed early in the processes, although some stakeholders complained that the review was weighted towards negative impacts of consolidation. At a particular NEFMC meeting, the audience spoke of how the alternatives would affect them, their community, and the future of scalloping. Informants recalled that those particular comments swayed decision-makers. However, one informant said that some in the industry coerced others to not come forward with their views. At the final vote, the NEFMC was fairly well versed in the SIA and the social issues at stake.

In contrast, Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan (NEFMC 2009) was particularly difficult for several NEFMC member informants (n = 4). This action considered implementing a catch share programme for the fishery, but some informants thought that the deadlines imposed by federal mandates did not allow for sufficient impact analysis. The projection of impacts of the new programme was also hindered, because it was unknown how many fishermen would opt to join the programme. As one NEFMC member recalled the quandary:

I don't think anybody thought that sectors would be adopted as widely as they were … It's kind of an impossible task to determine what the social and economic impacts are going to be if you have something that's a voluntary program and you can just guess how many people are going to say, ‘Yes I want to do this’ … So, it becomes an infinite analysis.

In this case, a non-economic social science expert was not assigned to the plan development team, and the NEFMC analyst who wrote the SIAs was not aware that NMFS has SIA guidance. The SIA was completed after the NEFMC voted on the draft amendment (before public hearings and final decisions). An anthropologist informant suggested that some of the current challenges in the groundfish fishery today (e.g. distributional conflicts, consolidation) might have been avoided if there had been a dedicated social expert used during this period.

National perspectives

The comments of informants from across the US (n = 11) largely mirrored those expressed from the northeast. There are similar concerns with the paucity of social data and analysis in plan documents. These informants stated that they too have never been able to complete an SIA comparable to the NMFS guidance, but are striving to make SIAs better over time. There is insufficient time and funding to undertake large-scale studies, so basing SIAs on existing sources, and public comment during scoping is common nationally. Members of other US Fishery Councils also tend to rely on public testimony and personal knowledge in decision-making rather than the content of plan documents.

Each US region is unique in terms of who is involved in collecting social data and contributing to SIAs. It depends on whether the expertise is located with the Council or the NMFS Regional Office or Science Center, and the relationship between these entities. New England and the Mid-Atlantic Councils are fairly similar in their use of social science expertise. The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils are the only other Councils that have a full-time social analyst on staff besides New England. In cases where Councils have staff dedicated to analysing social impacts, there is more consistency among fishery management plans in how those sections get written. Scoping is an important component for later framing SIAs. Councils consider social impacts throughout plan development, but there are less structured ways for using social data than the biological data. Some Council members read every document thoroughly, but others focus on the more controversial issues. With the exception of the North Pacific Council, Science and Statistical Committees are rarely asked to review social or economic assessments as a matter of routine. There is nation-wide coordination among NMFS staff focused on NEPA compliance to consistently review the core content of documents, but regions vary in how they work with Councils and what their specific sticking points are. However, it is unclear to SIA writers what those requirements are.

There is much variation between Councils' websites in terms of the amount of social information posted and the use of social media as a communication tool. Councils have created Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, blogs, electronic newsletters and applications for smart phones. A few Councils have website space dedicated fishing community data and explaining the SIA process.

SIAs professionals are reaching out to each other nationally to facilitate greater consistency and coordination in capturing the human dimensions of fisheries. There is now a ‘Human Dimensions Team’ of NMFS social scientists to more consistently support fisheries management. The Councils have convened annual national meetings of Science and Statistical Committees since 2008 to discuss solutions to meeting legal requirements. The first three meetings focused on biological issues, but at the fourth, held in 2011, half of the meeting was dedicated to social science (MAFMC 2012). The group noted a wide variation of SSC engagement with social science nationally. Their recommendations for SSCs include: developing more white papers; including social science in Council research plans; peer reviewing social science models; training new Council members in social science; and using fishing effort data in setting fishery catch limits.

Through the interview process reported here, interest was expressed by informants outside New England in fostering a network among social impact analyst staff at the Councils and others from NMFS and academia who work directly on SIAs. As a result, a ‘Social Science Policy Group’ has formed to network and seek advice on particular questions or analyses specific to management. The dialogue is leading towards greater national consistency in how social data are considered in fisheries management.

Conclusions and recommendations

This inquiry revealed that social factors of northeast US federal fisheries are considered important, and that participation in and processes involved with collecting and incorporating social data have improved over time. Although the consideration of social data in fishery plan development processes has been legally required in the USA for over 40 years, it is still common for documentation of proposed actions to contain a paucity of social data and impact analysis, at least for federal fisheries in the northeast. Managers must also rely on their own knowledge, public testimony and direct dialogue with stakeholders participating in public decision-making processes. Progress is still necessary to ensure that managers have the information necessary to understand how fishermen and fishing communities might be impacted by decisions. Inconsistent social data collection and analysis, as well as the spotty participation of social scientists in fishery plan processes over the years, has hampered consideration of social issues and can lead to unintended consequences for fishing communities and fishermen.

Steps are being taken to improve the situation. NMFS has refocused efforts to conduct systematic data collection and provide more effective tools for the public to access and understand data. The presence of social scientists on the science advisory bodies is fostering inclusion of social considerations in setting fishery catch levels. Non-economic social science experts are being used more frequently and engaged earlier in plan development. Expectations for SIA content and quality are being clarified. Regional and national dialogue among providers of SIAs is elevating product quality and consistency.

Informants provided many recommendations for how SIAs and their use could be more effective. Those that could be generally applicable are provided here:

• Provide training opportunities (e.g. webinars, graduate programmes) for SIA practitioners.

• Clarify the most essential variables to be analysed in an SIA, given inevitable time and resource constraints.

• Engage non-economic social scientists early and consistently in management plan development.

• Allocate fieldwork travel funds for SIA data collection.

• Use social scientists when reviewing/approving SIAs.

• Post to agency websites information about the management process and descriptions of the impacted communities.

As social impact practitioners are demonstrating globally in other common property resource contexts (Esteves et al. 2012), the human dimensions of fisheries will be more effectively managed as the concept of social impact assessment broadens to include the idea of process as well as product. As narrowly defined, the SIA is a discrete product produced to comply with NEPA-like legislation. Although much improvement has been made, the informants queried here still struggle to adequately capture and communicate in the SIA product all the social impacts that the NEFMC must contend with. Where social scientists are engaged early and consistently, fostering the consideration of human dimensions in the design of measures in a participatory and iterative manner, both the SIA process and product are most valuable.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the New England Fishery Management Council for encouraging and funding this project, and to acknowledge the more than 45 individuals from the National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fishery Management Councils, academia, and other entities who gave their time to be interviewed or provide information. This paper was improved by the feedback of several informants, NMFS staff and three anonymous reviewers. Factual errors are ultimately the responsibility of the author. Statements should neither be considered formal positions of the NEFMC or NMFS nor a consensus of the informants. Additional detail may be found in a report targeted to the NEFMC (Feeney 2012).

Funding

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration award number NA10NMF4410008.