| dc.description.abstract |
<p>There have been few efforts to evaluate the actual and perceived effectiveness
of environmental management programs created by consensus-based, multi-stakeholder
negotiation or negotiated rulemaking. Previous evaluations have used perceived success
among participants as a proxy for actual effectiveness, but seldom have investigated
the ecological outcomes of these negotiations. Fewer still, if any, have compared
the actual and perceived outcomes. Here I evaluate and compare the social and ecological
outcomes of the negotiated rulemaking process of marine mammal take reduction planning.
Take reduction planning is mandated by the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
to reduce the fisheries-related serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals
(bycatch) in U.S. waters to below statutory thresholds. Teams of fishermen, environmentalists,
researchers, state and federal managers, and members of Regional Fisheries Management
Councils and Commissions create consensus-based rules to mitigate bycatch, called
Take Reduction Plans. There are six active Take Reduction Plans, one Take Reduction
Strategy consisting of voluntary measures, and one plan that was never implemented.
It has been 20 years since marine mammal take reduction planning was incorporated
into the MMPA. Early evaluations were promising, but identified several challenges.
In the past decade or more, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has implemented
measures to set up the teams for success.</p><p>I used data from formal Stock Assessment
Reports to assess and rank the actual ecological success of five Take Reduction Plans
(Harbor Porpoise, Bottlenose Dolphin, Atlantic Large Whale, Pelagic Longline, and
Pacific Offshore Cetacean) in mitigating the bycatch of 17 marine mammal stocks. In
addition, I employed social science data collection and analytical methods to evaluate
Take Reduction Team participants' opinions of the take reduction negotiation process,
outputs, and outcomes with respect to the ingredients required for successful multi-stakeholder,
consensus-based negotiation (team membership, shared learning, repeated interactions,
facilitated meetings, and consensus-based outputs). These methods included surveying
and interviewing current and former Take Reduction Team participants; using Structural
Equation Models (SEMs) and qualitative methods to characterize participant perceptions
across teams and stakeholder groups; and identifying and exploring the reasons for
similarities and differences among respondents, teams, and stakeholder groups. I also
employed SEMs to quantitatively examine the relationship between actual and perceived
ecological success, and contrasted actual and perceived outcomes by comparing their
qualitative rankings.</p><p>Structural Equation Models provided a valid framework
in which to quantitatively examine social and ecological data, in which the actual
ecological outcomes were used as independent predictors of the perceived outcomes.
Actual improvements in marine mammal bycatch enhanced stakeholder opinions about the
effectiveness of marine mammal Take Reduction Plans. The marine mammal take reduction
planning process has all of the ingredients necessary for effective consensus-based,
multi-stakeholder negotiations (Chapter 2). It is likely that the emphasis that the
National Marine Fisheries Service places on empirical information and keeping stakeholders
informed about bycatch, marine mammal stocks, and fisheries facilitated this relationship.
Informed stakeholders also had relatively accurate perceptions of the actual ecological
effectiveness of the Take Reduction Plans (Chapter 3). The long timeframes over which
the teams have been meeting generally have increased cooperation. The professionally
trained, neutral facilitators have produced fair negotiations, in which most individuals
felt they had an opportunity to contribute. Participant views of fairness significantly
influenced their satisfaction with Take Reduction Plans, which significantly affected
their perceptions about the effectiveness of those plans (Chapter 2). The mandate
to create a consensus-based output has, for the most part, minimized defections from
the negotiations and facilitated stakeholder buy-in. </p><p>In general, marine mammal
take reduction planning is a good negotiated rulemaking process, but has produced
mixed results (Chapters 1 and 2). Successful plans were characterized by straightforward
regulations and high rates of compliance. Unsuccessful plans had low compliance with
complex regulations and sometimes focused on very small stocks. Large teams and those
in the northeastern U.S. (Maine to North Carolina) were least successful at reducing
bycatch, which was reflected in stakeholder views of the effectiveness of these teams.
Take Reduction Team negotiations have not always produced practical or enforceable
regulations. Implementation of take reduction regulations is critical in determining
plan success and identifying effective mitigation measures, but because of a lack
of monitoring, has not been characterized consistently across most teams. Additionally,
elements like the "Other Special Measures Provision" in the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction
Plan have undermined the negotiation process by allowing the National Marine Fisheries
Service to alter consensus-based elements without consensus from the team, which has
led to hostility, mistrust, and frustration among stakeholders. </p><p>The final chapter
of this dissertation provides recommendations to improve the outcomes and make them
more consistent across teams. I based these recommendations on the information gathered
and analyzed in the first three chapters. They are grouped into four broad categories
- team membership, social capital, fairness, and plan implementation. If the National
Marine Fisheries Service implements these suggestions, both perceived and actual ecological
effectiveness of marine mammal Take Reduction Teams should improve, allowing these
teams to fulfill their maximum potential.</p>
|
|
