 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association (Mid-Summer 1999 Newsletter)
In Amendment 5, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission declared that the Striped Bass fishery is completely recovered. The National Marine Fisheries Service has testified before Congress that the Striped Bass fishery is completely recovered. JCAA has always been skeptical and saw this declaration as premature. Now, the Striped Bass Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has reviewed the current stock assessment date August 1999 and has determined that we have exceeded the target fishing mortality of .31 and are at or near the overfishing number of .38.
This means that the Striped Bass Board will be considering various options to decrease the catch of Striped Bass to bring us within the accepted guidelines under the present amendment. At this time, an addendum to Amendment 5, previously up for discussion, has been put on hold.
At the end of this discussion I have listed the options that were placed before the Striped Bass Board for review by the Striped Bass Technical Committee. The purpose of this review is to determine which, if any, of these options would result in the required cutbacks.
We can add to the options being reviewed by the Technical Committee. Since JCAA has always expressed concerns about the decisions made under Amendment 5, we are unwilling to accept any cutbacks that are based on the commercially biased administration of Amendment 5. When Amendment 5 was first proposed and was discussed at public hearings, the commercial fisheries along the coast would have been allowed an increase from 20% to 40% of their base years. The recreational catch would remain at 2 fish at 28 inches, the same catch allowed when the fishery was reopened in 1991. JCAA and many other groups suggested a unified bay and coast size limit of 24 inches for both the commercial and recreational anglers. This was rejected. After the public hearings were completed, the Striped Bass Board determined that maintaining the recreational catch at 2 fish at 28 inches would allow the Board to increase the coastal commercial catch to 70% of the base years. At the time, the representatives of the Technical Committee assured us that their projections supported this move and that these changes would not result in any overfishing. Once again, our efforts at conservation allowed the Striped Bass Board to squander our savings by increasing the commercial catch. By using additional models and continuing their commercial bias, the Board allowed additional increases in the catch of small fish in the producing areas. In the producing areas of Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay, the historical commercial users have been allowed to exceed the base years. Delaware's commercial fishermen are harvesting well over 100% of their base years. This is why we are unwilling to accept the options suggested by the Striped Bass Board. Those options are based on their traditional commercial bias and once again place the most restrictions on the very anglers who have been conserving fish. JCAA will request that our representatives to the ASMFC submit additional options. The options, which we want reviewed by the Technical Committee for the Striped Bass Board's consideration, include:
1. The ASMFC Striped Bass Board should cut back the commercial catch along the coast and in the Chesapeake Bay to a percentage that will accomplish the necessary goals.
2 The ASMFC Striped Bass Board should require all of the participating states to implement a percentage reduction of their total commercial and recreational catch to obtain the necessary goals.
Option one is the JCAA preferred option. I can already hear the screams of protest from the commercial community. Commercial fishermen caused the problem by overfishing with the permission of the Striped Bass Board. Now they need to solve the problem by taking the necessary cutbacks. Those of us who fished for Striped Bass in the base years (1972-1979) know that we haven't gotten a recovered fishery. If we ask these anglers about what fish they keep, we find that we are no where near 100%, or 70%, or 50%. We probably aren't taking home 1% of what we caught and kept during the base years. Since 1990, I have taken home a total of less than 20 fish. I used to keep that many in one trip in New York or two trips in New Jersey during the base years. The point is, we're not the problem and should not have to cut back further to solve a problem caused by the continuing commercial bias on the Striped Bass Board. There are over 2 million recreational anglers, each entitled to an equal personal harvest of this resource. The current management plan has returned the catch of most commercial fishermen to their former levels, while the 28 inch minimum size has kept most coastal recreational anglers from attaining any real catch at all. This is poor public policy and very unfair to private citizens fishing for their own use. Until we can allow personal use anglers to retain a modest, daily bag limit of Striped Bass, all cuts should come from the commercial sector. I ask that you call, fax and email your Commissioners and asked them to support JCAA's Option 1
Striped Bass Board Motions - August 5, 1999
Proposed Timeline for Year 2000 Actions on Implementing Reductions in the Striped Bass Fishery:
Options for Technical Committee Evaluation:
Bag limit/season table option
Analysis to evaluate all states going to 1 fish
Evaluation of CCA proposal
Reduction of current commercial quotas and any other fisheries with direct allocations
Evaluate producer areas staying at status quo (bag limits)
Evaluation of slot limits for all fisheries by producer and coastal areas (2 fish total, 1 fish at 20" - 26" 1 fish at 40" or larger)
Evaluate options to reduce recreational discards
What is the total harvest at F=.31?
Here is a site where you can find your Commissioners address.
http://www.asmfc.org/Commissioners.htm
The home page for ASMFC is http://www.asmfc.org where update on meeting dates will be posted
The summaries below are provided by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. JCAA applauds the Commission for this public outreach project. A special thanks goes to Tina Berger. This is another example of the fine job of the ASMFC staff. They are clearly dedicated to letting the public know what is going on. We hope the Commission continues this practice. We hope other councils and commissions follows their lead.
Summary
The American Shad and River Herring Management Board met on August 4th 1999 to discuss the Technical Review Team’s comments on State annual reports and fishing recovery plans. Recommendations and questions on each of the submitted reports were presented to the States on an individual basis. In addition, general questions of a technical nature were presented to the Board for clarification purposes. Bycatch allowances, stock composition studies and tagging programs comprised the majority of the issues raised for further explanation. Due to the technical nature of these reporting requirements, the Board deferred such issues to the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee is scheduled to meet in late September to discuss the programmatic details of tagging requirements and determination of excessive bycatch levels for the alosine species covered by Amendment 1.
No Motions
Summary
The Striped Bass Management Board discussed two issues: (1) the striped bass stock assessment, and (2) the Public Information Document for the next amendment or addendum for the striped bass management plan. A summary of the stock assessment was presented to the Board. The assessment indicated that the fishing mortality rate was 0.38 which exceeded the target in the plan of F=0.31. The Management Board determined that the striped bass management program needed to be altered for year 2000 to bring the fishing mortality down to the target in the plan. The Board developed the following schedule to meet the goal of implementing a new management program by year 2000.
The Striped Bass Management Board agreed to continue developing the Public Information Document after the state management programs for the year 2000 have been approved. The Board will be pursuing the next amendment or addendum to the management plan in year 2000.
Tautog Management Board (August 5, 1999)Summary
The Tautog Management Board discussed two issues: (1) the tautog stock assessment, and (2) approve Addendum II to the Fishery Management Plan for public hearing. The assessment was not completed in time for the Board meeting. The Board was informed that the Technical Committee was meeting on August 12 and 13 to work on the assessment.
The Management Board approved Addendum II with a few minor editorial changes. Addendum II delays the next reduction in fishing mortality for 2 years. The reduction in fishing mortality was delayed because the assessment will not fully evaluate the effects of the current management programs due to the short duration of implementation. The Addendum includes a series of issues that are to be addressed during the 2 year delay. The issues to be addressed are intended to give the states more flexibility in developing management programs while still achieving the goals and objectives of the management plan.
Weakfish Management BoardSummary
The Weakfish Board met on Thursday, August 5 from 8:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. The Board approved two new Advisory Panel members: George Scocca, from New York and Felix Heald from Maryland. Amy Schick reported, on behalf of the Plan Review Team, the findings from the state compliance report review. Based on recommendations from the PRT, the Board directed the Technical Committee to recommend changes to the criteria, procedures, and requirements for de minimis status; and to update the Evaluation Manual to account for changes since the approval of Amendment #3. In addition, the Board changed the due date of state compliance reports from June 1 of each year to September 1 of each year. The Board acknowledged that all states are currently implementing all required measures of Amendment #3. The Technical Committee reported to the Board on the most recent stock assessment information, recommendations on biological reference points, and bag and size limit progress. The stock assessment will be reviewed at the fall SARC.
American Eel Board Approves Eel FMP:
American Eel Board - Final Approval Slated for November on Eel FMPAlexandria, Virginia – The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission American Eel Management Board announced today approval of the Draft FMP for American Eel for final adoption by the Board and the Commission at its Annual Meeting in late October/early November. The plan is the culmination of four years of intense work and scrutiny by the American Eel Management Board, Technical Committee, Advisory Panel, and the public. Its specific goals include: protecting and enhancing the abundance of American eel in inland and territorial waters of the Atlantic states and jurisdictions (Maine through Florida, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission); contributing to the viability of the American eel spawning population; and providing for sustainable commercial, subsistence and recreational fisheries by preventing overharvest of any eel life stage.
A Draft Public Hearing Document of the FMP had been approved by the Board in February 1999. This resulted in 18 public hearings along the coast in locations identified by the states and jurisdictions. Recommendations received during the public hearings and written comments were reviewed and addressed by the Board which resulted in some changes to the latest draft.
The impetus to begin the fisheries management planning process for American eel arose in part out of concern regarding a potential decline in American eel populations in recent years and in part out of concern regarding the interconnectedness of fisheries for American eel and horseshoe crab. Several factors have contributed to the concern that unlimited harvest may only aggravate current declines in eel population status. These factors include: (1) a long maturation period (7-30 years); (2) glass eels aggregate seasonally to migrate; (3) yellow eel harvest is a cumulative stress, over multiple years, on the same yearclasses; (4) all eel mortality is pre-spawning mortality; and (5) changes in yearclass abundance are not readily recognizable because harvest data include fish of similar sizes but are from a number of yearclasses.
The draft plan will require mandatory implementation of a coastwide monitoring and assessment program for the young-of-the-year eels. It will also require the states and jurisdictions to collect commercial harvest data in order to quantify the harvest and to evaluate the existing data collection efforts.
The primary regulatory tools of the plan focus on establishing harvest limits on recreational and commercial fisheries. Specifically, the draft plan calls for establishment of a six-inch minimum size and, 50 eel/person possession limit for recreational fisheries in all of the participating states/jurisdictions, unless otherwise approved by the Board. Additionally, the Board approved a provision which prohibits the sale of eels by recreational fishermen. Commercial management measures will maintain existing or more conservative American eel commercial fishery regulations, including gear specifications, for all life stages. States with minimum size limits for commercial eel fisheries shall retain those minimum size limits, unless otherwise approved by the American Eel Management Board.
In addition, the Board has approved an initial recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce calling for a ban on harvest of American eel at any life stage in federal waters (three to 200 miles offshore), but will permit a possession limit of 50 eel/person for use as bait. A recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior was also approved calling for the listing of American eel glass eels and elvers under Appendix III of the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). The CITES listing will in no way prohibit the harvest of American eel at any life stage, but rather will improve record-keeping of exports and should reduce any illegal harvest of eel. Of all the comments received through the extensive public hearing process on the draft plan, the Appendix III listing gained the most widespread support.
The final draft of the plan is slated for Board and Commission approval at the Commission’s Annual Meeting in early November. For information, please contact Heather Stirratt, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400, ext. 301.
Disaster Relief for Commercial Fishermen?by Tom Melton Managing Editor, LI Fishermen
The commerce department will provide $5 million in disaster relief to commercial fishermen who have suffered losses because of declining fish stocks in the Gulf of Maine, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley announced recently. The proposal was designed to compensate fishermen who suffered economic harm during a series of closures of inshore fishing grounds, designed to protect dwindling Gulf of Maine cod stocks.
This is great, the commercial fleet destroys the fishery by overfishing, reaps the benefits while they are destroying it, then gets $5 million dollars, or $1500 per day of lost time at sea for the 99 season.
I just don’t get it! Why is it, the recreational sector continues to be overlooked when it comes to relief? Should all the bait and tackle shops, party and charter boats have their income supplemented due to a lack of blackfish, cod and ling? How about winter flounder? You remember those don’t you, the little flatfish that looks like a fluke but with a smaller mouth. There used to be boat livery stations all over Moriches Bay and other parts of Long Island chasing flounder. Did any of these guys get disaster relief when they were forced to close their doors? I highly doubt it. Then again, maybe the key was they were not the cause of the decline, therefore according to NMFS standards; maybe they shouldn’t be entitled to compensation.
I am sick and tired of hearing about the poor old commercial fishermen and how they can’t do anything else and how are they going to survive? How are they going to survive? It’s easy, rape the resource, and claim harm was done due to closures and NMFS will bail you out with disaster monies.
What about all the Grummanites who lost their jobs when Grumman closed up shop? Did they go on welfare? No, they found other means of employment, some in completely different fields. Why can’t the commercial fisherman do the same? Then again, why, when you can claim foul and harp on culture and how their great grand parents used to commercial fish and this is what they must do. Then when all else fails, cry very loud.
The recreational sector puts a ton of money back into the economy every year, far more than the commercial sector and all we keep hearing is its for recreation. That’s a lot of bull! Sure it’s for the angler’s recreation, but not for the tackle shop, bait dealer and boat owners. These guys are counting on viable fish stocks to promote their businesses and make ends meet. They too, have to wonder about what they will do for a living if things collapse.
We all know certain species of fish are hurting and the recreational sector is doing their part to help. Catch and release angling has become more and more prevalent and we constantly hear of keeper size fish caught, but only a few taken for the table despite being of legal size. We have all been a victim of cuts and seasonal closures, but only the commercial end seems to get bailed out. It’s time for the government officials to start looking at the mom and pop tackle shops, the family run charter/party boat business and help them due to dwindling fish stocks.
In the meantime, it’s business as usual for the commercial fleet, rape the resource, make as much money as possible, and when a fish stock is decimated, pick another to target!
Star Ledger Friday August 13, 1999
Jerry Flanagan , Clean Water Advocate, NJPIRG Citizen Lobby
Tom Fote, Legislative Director, Jersey Coast Anglers Association
It’s summer again. If you hadn’t notice by the sweltering heat and oppressive humidity, just take a look at the low water levels in rivers, lakes, and streams across the state. The Delaware River is so low that a modern day George Washington could abandon his boat and skip from rock to rock to reach the far shore. In fact, this year, low water conditions are reaching record conditions. Our concerns are not of armed invasions, but of increased pollution concentrations in New Jersey’s waterways during this summer’s drought conditions.
New Jersey rivers, lakes, and streams face severe and unaddressed water quality problems even under normal conditions. 85% of the state’s waterways are too polluted for fishing and swimming due to high levels of pollution discharged into surface waters from industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants. These problems are exacerbated under low flow (less than normal rain) conditions as the volume of "natural" water drops and the volume of industrial and sewage discharge remains relatively constant.
On a typical day, more than half of the water in major New Jersey rivers, like the Passaic and Raritan rivers, is sewage discharge. According to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) data, during ‘low-flow’ drought conditions these levels increase dramatically. For rivers like the Passaic and the Whippany, sewage treatment plant discharge can easily exceed 90% of the river flow. These extreme conditions reflect what is happening in the 1,042 waterways in the state known or suspected to not meet water quality standards. In fact, DEP data demonstrates that sewage treatment discharge has increased dramatically since 1981. This, coupled with declining levels of natural water flow due to stream bank destruction, overdevelopment, and ocean dumping threatens water quality even under the best conditions.
This summer, pollution concentrations have reached record proportions. Phil White, spokesman for the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission has announced this week that major rivers like the Passaic are at their lowest levels in 77 years. With water levels at record setting lows, concentrations of treated industrial and sewage discharge are on the rise causing increased public health and ecological problems.
Parents should be concerned about letting their young child play in local rivers and streams. High concentrations of treated sewage and industrial waste in our state’s waterways is a significant health risk. For instance, direct contact can cause serious illness. A summer swim in a river, lake or stream should not mean a trip to the family doctor. Further, phosphorus, a nutrient linked to sewage treatment plant discharges, has been linked to recent fish kills on the Delaware and Raritan Rivers.
The Clean Water Now! coalition of public health groups, environmental organizations, and outdoors groups is calling on the state of New Jersey to require mandatory pollution reduction in the state’s rivers, lake, and streams. High concentrations of sewage and industrial waste during drought conditions is just a glimpse of he growing pollution epidemic in the state.
Thanks to letters by many of you, the Army Corps has extended the public comment period on the proposal to dump tainted mud from Castle Astoria Oil Terminals in the ocean or Jamaica Bay. Thanks also to our growing list of supporters Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), Congressmen LoBiondo (R-NJ), Pallone (D-NJ), Saxton (R-NJ), and Weiner (D-NY), and George Frampton (Acting Chair of the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality). Momentum is building to find a solution.
We must now work to:1) Get public hearings and submit comments against the dumping.
2) Implement environmental alternatives. Gov. Pataki has $50 million for alternatives; he has the money to solve this crisis now. Alternatives are available.
Step 1Write to Mr. Mark Roth, US Army Corps of Engineers, 26 Federal Plaza, NY, NY 10278-0090. Demand public hearings in New York and New Jersey on the basis that the following information must be provided, in person, to the public and can not be satisfied by written comments only. You want:
(1) to review and witness presentations from companies that offer dredged material disposal treatment alternatives not described in the Public Notice, and require visual understanding of these options.
(2) the Army Corps to provide the public with the correct spill history in the area, since the information in the original Public Notice is inaccurate. There were at least 9 spills in the last 2 years that are not included. These spills must be explained at the hearing and a new Supplemental Notice must be issued.
(3) the Army Corps to justify in detail the ocean placement and Jamaica Bay Demonstration Pit Project as alternatives. Adequate scientific and regulatory basis has not been presented to support the alternatives.
(4) to meet and hear directly from those that will be making important decisions effecting your quality of life.
Step 2Several alternatives exist right now that not only solve Castle Oil’s dredging needs, but also help to fix contaminated areas. The alternative technologies modify the dredged material into a material that remediates and fixes contaminated industrial sites. The technology is working successfully at three sites in New Jersey. These are just two of the possible solutions for meeting dredging needs of Castle Oil Terminals:
The NJ based technology can be applied to New York landfills in need of remediation, such as Penn/Fountain.
A remediation laboratory at an abandoned strip mine area in western Pennsylvania is currently testing 500,000 tons of dredged material from the region. The processed dredged material is being tested to help reduce harmful environmental conditions at these sites by controlling acid run-off and re-grading the land.
The Problem
Any alternative will require additional funds for implementation. In 1996, the Port Authority of NY/NJ provided each state with $65 million dollars to help develop alternatives. Approximately $50 million remains for NY dollars to develop dredged material management strategies. NY can apply these funds to help implement a solution for Castle Oil mud. It is estimated that no more than $3 million of the $50 million is needed. The use of this money would benefit the entire region by meeting dredging needs for ships and improving other environmental problems.
Call/Write Governor George Pataki, (518-474-8390), State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224. Tell him NY must implement environmentally sound alternatives now. Urge him to release some of the money toward implementing a solution for Castle Terminals’ 90,000 tons of mud.
And
If you live/vote in New Jersey:Call/Write Charles Gargano (keeper of the money), (212) 803-3100, Executive Director, Economic State Development Corp. (ESDC), 633 Third Avenue, NY, NY 10017. Fax 212-803-3715. Demand that New York uses some of the millions of dollars that it has for developing environmentally sound alternatives to start up a NY demonstration project, using Castle Astoria dredged material. He has access to the money and primary responsibility to fulfill Gov. Pataki’s 1996 pledge to implement alternatives.
Call Governor Christi Todd-Whitman, (609) 292-6000, State House, State Street CN001, Trenton, NJ 08625. Thank her for her past leadership and urge her to come down hard on New York. Urge her to call Governor Pataki and tell him to invest in the port by investing in the environmental management of dredged material.
For more information, call COA at 732-872-0111 or visit "ACTION ALERTS" at www.cleanoceanaction.org
Mr. Mark Roth US Army Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278-0090
Fax (212) 264-4260
RE: PN#. 1997-10320-OD
Dear Mr. Roth,
JCAA is requesting that a public hearing and extension to the comment period for Public Notice No. 1997-10320-OD be granted. The Public Notice presents an application by Castle Astoria, Inc. to dispose of 90,000 cubic yards of maintenance dredged material from Steinway Creek, East River, Queens, NY at the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) or for a demonstration subaqueous pit project in Jamaica Bay. JCAA has always opposed the dumping of contaminated fill from a one polluted area to another without decontaminated it first. We request that a public hearing be held so that the public and people impacted by this decision can collect and discuss the necessary information to adequately consider Castle Astoria’s application. Public Notice (PN) No. 1997-10320-OD does not describe in sufficient detail the proposed Jamaica Bay disposal/restoration alternative, nor does it adequately discuss the testing results that make this material suitable remediation material at the Historic Area Remediation Site.
The PN sets a precedent by the proposal to dispose of material in Jamaica Bay as part of a demonstration project. This precedent-setting proposal and its specifics must be discussed in a public hearing. In particular, the PN does not detail the restoration needs for Jamaica Bay, studies that support this option, time-line for this option as it relates to Castle Astoria’s dredging time-line needs, citizen’s concerns for this option, and why this material is appropriate remediation material for Jamaica Bay.
The testing requirements for determining appropriate remediation material at the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) and how the Castle Astoria dredged material will reduce impacts from historical ocean dumping in Zone 1 of the HARS must be presented and discussed.
In order for the public to be informed of the proposed disposal options for Castle Astoria’s dredged material, the quality of the material, how the material will achieve the proposed beneficial reuse options, and how those options compare in terms of beneficial reuse, a public hearing must be held before a permit-decision is made. This is not remediation but further pollution
Mark Taylor
President
A revolution is occurring in the way science is used in environmental regulation. Like most revolutions, this one is causing some pain and some disruption, and of course it is being opposed viciously by those who profit from the present system. But the revolution is occurring nevertheless, and the ultimate outcome seems assured. When the revolution is complete, it will be a great day for public health and for the environment.
Scientists often define "scientific certainty" as "being 95% sure that cause and effect have been correctly identified." It is exceedingly rare for a large group of scientists to be 95% certain about anything, especially about anything as complex as an environmental problem. When you’re talking about living systems, great scientific uncertainty is the norm. Even in the case of an ultra-well-studied chemical like dioxin, scientific uncertainty far outweighs firm knowledge of cause and effect.
How is scientific uncertainty currently treated in environmental protection? For 50 years it has been used permissively. It has been used to postpone actions that would protect public health. The classic case is the introduction of tetraethyl lead into gasoline. (See REHW #539, #540.) When chemical and automobile corporations announced they were starting to put highly-toxic tetraethyl lead into gasoline in 1922, numerous public health officials thought it was a dangerous idea and they urged delay and careful study. But the corporations argued that there was no scientific agreement about the threat; in the absence of convincing evidence of widespread harm (which had not yet occurred, so couldn’t be documented), they insisted they had the right to proceed. Basically, they argued, "Until you can line up the dead bodies, we can do whatever we want." On that basis, the corporations pressed ahead heedlessly with the new toxic technology, thus setting the standard for corporate behavior over the next 50 years. The consequences of that particular decision are now a matter of record—tens of millions of Americans suffered brain damage, their IQs permanently diminished by exposure to lead dust.
Because we have allowed scientific uncertainty to postpone controls on dangerous activities, we now have hazardous levels of mercury in most of the nation’s fresh-water fish; the Earth’s ozone shield has been dangerously depleted; global warming is upon us, with attendant droughts, fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons; the ocean’s major fisheries are in serious decline; the normal sex ratio of male-to-female babies has been changed in numerous industrialized countries, and human sperm counts have declined 50% in 50 years; immune system disorders like asthma and diabetes are steeply rising; many of the world’s coral reefs are dying; cancers of the brain, the lymph system, the blood system and the testicles are increasing; cancer in children is escalating; many species have gone extinct.... This list of contemporary calamities could be readily extended.
But now people are waking up. They are waking up to the fact that scientific uncertainty should be cause for caution, not for plunging ahead recklessly. When flying blind, if you are not sure whether that shape looming just ahead is a cloud or a mountain, slow down. A stitch in time saves nine. If you aren’t sure what you’re doing, you should proceed slowly and carefully, or perhaps not at all. Better safe than sorry. That is the philosophy of precaution.
In truth, the principle of precautionary action has seemed a bit abstract, until now. It has seemed like a fine philosophy, but how would it work in actual practice? Now a new handbook from the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) fleshes out this important philosophy of environmental protection, describing how it can work at the local level.[1]
The United States is already under obligation to operate by the precautionary principle. The federal government signed and ratified the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The Rio Declaration says, "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States [meaning nations—P.M.] according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Therefore, it is not a matter of WHETHER the U.S. will abide by the precautionary principle, but HOW.
The precautionary principle is now embedded in numerous international treaties and conventions: the Second North Sea Declaration; the Bergen Declaration on Sustainable Development; the Ministerial Declaration of the Second World Climate Conference; the Maastricht Treaty on the European Union; the Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes; and others.
Thus the stage is set. All that remains is for organizers and activists to press the precautionary principle into service at the local and state levels. The new guidebook from SEHN shows us how.
The precautionary principle says that decision-makers have a general duty to take preventive action to avoid harm before scientific certainty has been established.
The test for knowing when to apply the precautionary principle is the combination of threat of harm and scientific uncertainty. Some people would say that the threatened harm must be serious or irreversible, but others point out that this does not allow for the cumulative effects of relatively small insults.
Instead of asking how much damage or harm we will tolerate (which is the approach taken by risk assessment), the precautionary principle asks how to reduce or eliminate hazards, and it considers all possible means for achieving that goal, including scrapping the proposed activity. (Of course, alternatives to a hazardous activity must be scrutinized as carefully as the hazardous activity itself.)
The precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof. Proponents of an activity should prove that their activity will not cause undue harm to human health or the ecosystem. Those who have the power and resources to act to prevent harm have a responsibility to do so. That responsibility has 2 parts: financial liability for anything that goes wrong. [A performance bond posted up front (common in the construction industry) is the best way to handle this. See REHW #510.] The second part of responsibility is a duty to monitor, understand, investigate, inform and act. Ignorance and uncertainty are no longer excuses for postponing actions to prevent harm.
The steps in taking precautionary action are not complicated:
1. Describe and understand the problem or threat. How big is it?
How far could it extend in space and time? Are there indirect impacts (for example, after the product is thrown away)? How serious could the effects be? Similar questions are raised whenever an environmental impact statement is written in response to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), so there is not much new here.
2. Describe what is known and what is not known. There are many kinds of uncertainty (which the SEHN HANDBOOK does an excellent job of describing). Are we dealing with something that is unknowable, or about which we are totally ignorant? (If so, this is a good reason not to proceed.) What would it take to reduce the uncertainties? (Some uncertainties can be reduced and some cannot.) The SEHN HANDBOOK provides a good guide for understanding uncertainties: "Environmental and public health advocates have to ask difficult questions of industry and regulators to expose the depths of our ignorance. Once this lack of knowledge has been exposed, the notion of needlessly exposing humans and the environment to hazards without information on their effects seems irrational, and precaution seems logical."
Identify alternatives to the activity or product. First restate the problem to describe the purpose of the activity. A development provides housing; a solvent provides degreasing; a pesticide provides pest management. Now examine all of the alternative ways of fulfilling the purpose, to find the one that minimizes damage to people and to the environment.
4. Determine a course of action. How much precaution seems called for? Stop the proposed activity? Demand alternatives? Demand modifications to reduce bad impacts? Demand that a performance bond be posted up front?
5. Monitor. Those undertaking the activity should bear the cost of monitoring, but it should be conducted by an independent party (when possible). The monitoring information might warrant additional actions, or different actions.
The HANDBOOK then compares precaution to the way decisions are made now—by risk assessment. Risk assessment does not fare well in the comparison.
The HANDBOOK ends with a section called "Answering the critics." Critics of the precautionary approach say things like, "It is not based on sound science" and, "This is emotional and irrational" and, "This will halt development and send us back to the stone age," and, "We comply with regulations so we are already practicing precaution." The HANDBOOK patiently provides reasoned responses to each of these dumb statements and several others as well.
The precautionary principle has American industry scared to death. Precautionary action immediately makes sense to people. Everyone can understand the wisdom of, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and, "Better safe than sorry." The precautionary principle combines scientific validity with ethical force. No wonder corporations (and their handmaidens in government) consider it a threat to business as usual. It IS a threat to business as usual.
Industry’s best hope is to adopt the language of precaution with great fanfare, while pressing ahead with the same old risk-based projects and programs, hoping no one will notice. To this end, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, a chemical industry think tank, held a conference last month to develop strategies for countering the precautionary principle. Participants openly scoffed at precaution. One participant described how his mother used to make him wear a sweater whenever he went outside, even though he lived in southern California. That pathetic little anecdote drew a loud, nervous laugh from the assembled throng, as if it had scored big points against the wisdom of precaution.
Participants had paid good money to attend the Harvard seminar, hoping to learn how to shore up the sagging fortunes of risk assessment. But even Big Heads from Harvard cannot salvage a bad idea whose time has gone. All risk assessments are fiction, shot through with assumptions, guesstimates, judgments, and biases— all disguised disingenuously as "good science." The only thing that allows risk assessors to hold their heads up in public is that most people don’t have the faintest idea what risk assessors do for a living or the consequences their work entails.
The principle of precautionary action, on the other hand, embodies all aspects of science—including uncertainty—in an ethical procedure aimed at ELIMINATING risks (something no risk assessment has ever aimed to do).
In the long run, the ethical way will prevail.
Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
[1] Joel Tickner, Carolyn Raffensperger, and Nancy Myers, THE
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN ACTION—A HANDBOOK (Windsor, North Dakota: Science and Environmental Health Network, 1999). E-mail:
craffensperger@compuserve.com; mail: SEHN, Rt. 1, Box 73, Windsor, ND 58424; telephone and fax: (701) 763-6286.Descriptor terms: precaution; precautionary principle; risk assessment; carolyn raffensperger; joel tickner; science in decision-making; decision-making; regulation;
ISLAND BEACH STATE PARK -- Three large bottlenose dolphins, who apparently drowned after becoming entangled in commercial fishing nets, have washed up on the beach here during the past few days.
All of the dolphins were "offshore" dolphins, usually found in deeper water, said Robert Schoelkopf, director of the Marine Mammal Stranding Center in Brigantine. The first one found, a 700-pound, 9-foot long lactating female, had obvious net marks on her, he said. The other two dolphins were both large males, he said. "There are indications all three were caught by fisheries interactions," he said. "I know we are having a heck of a time tracking down who did it."
One of the male dolphins had a National Marine Fisheries Service tag on him, which indicated he had been tagged after he died by a federal fisheries service employee who rode on a commercial fishing boat.
"When an animal dies and they have a federal observer on board, they put a tag on it, which helps us out tremendously," Schoelkopf said. "This is the only one of the three that had a tag on it. The other two we are assuming are part of the same catch." Some commercial fishermen leave their nets in the water overnight, and dolphins get caught in the nets, an occurrence Schoelkopf calls "incidental takes." Schoelkopf said the female's calf is probably dead too.
More than a dozen dead turtles have been found over the past two weeks, he said. The turtles have apparently become trapped in commercial fishing traps called welk pots after trying to get at the bait, he said.
"The turtles go down and get their heads inside trying to get to the food and become trapped in the fishing gear and they end up suffocating," Schoelkopf said.
The dolphins were buried on Island Beach. Any dolphins or other large animals are usually buried on the north end of Brigantine, but at this time of year the area is a nesting place for piping plovers.
|
|
|
|
|