Communities
This web page is divided into several sections:
|
Gillnetting family. Used with permission from Fishing the West Coast
|
What is a Fishing Community?
Although from a distance the “fishing community” may seem like a single group of like-minded people, it actually consists of many communities based on gear type, fishery, geography, and values. Social scientists spend a lot of time trying to define “community” so that communities can be studied and compared. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) defines a fishing community as:
“a community which is substantially dependent on or
substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources
to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners,
operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in
such community.”
In interpreting this definition, the National Marine Fisheries Service
has stated that “A fishing community is a social or economic group whose
members reside in a specific location...” This “official” interpretation
means that a fishing community exists in a specific place like Astoria,
San Pedro, or Seattle. However, other types of communities exist. For
example, an “occuptional community” is a group of people involved in the
same occupation, like the coastwide community of trawlers who engage in similar
activities. A “community of interest” is made up of people who share
similar interests - for example, people who are concerned about making
the fishing industry safer. One town or city might include many different
occupational communities and communities of interest.
However you define fishing communities, it can be said that they are
composed of diverse, independent people who do not fit easily into neat
categories and who rarely, if ever, present themselves as a homogeneous
group.
The Community Conundrum
Not much information on fishing communities has been systematically gathered. One reason for this is because most funding for fisheries management goes towards assessing fish stocks. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2002 budget requests more than $200.8 million for biological fisheries research, compared to $3.4 million for economics, statistics, and other social research. Another reason that information
has not been systematically gathered is because the instability and complexity
of the fishing industry make it very hard to pin down. Census data does
not differentiate between fishery and forestry occupations, and concerns
about identifying individuals, businesses, and privileged information limits
the publication of economic data that would be useful for studying the
economic importance of fishing activities. To complicate matters,
many fishing communities are unincorporated or are parts of larger communities
that do not rely on fishing (for example, Los Angeles). Also, many fishing
community members only fish part time, or hold other jobs while they fish.
In a way, collecting community information is about as hard as collecting
information on fish stocks - both populations are highly mobile and exist
in a complex and constantly-changing universe.
For information on disaster relief, buybacks, and assistance for families and businesses, visit our Communities: Families/Assistance webpage.
What Does Management Say about Fishing Communities?
The 1996 revision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, which is the basis for fisheries management in the
United States, recognizes the importance of human communities and their
relationship to fisheries. Among other things, its National Standard
8 declares that fishery conservation must take into account the importance
of fishery resources to fishing communities, with the goals of providing
for the “sustained participation” of those communities in fisheries and
minimizing “adverse economic impacts” as much as possible. This
focus on communities represents a shift taking place in many areas of
natural resource management. However, funding for studying the effects
of management on communities remains at a low level.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process also calls
for an assessment of the impacts of actions on communities. As part of
the NEPA process, both economic factors (economic base, employment, revenue,
income, etc.) and social factors (population dynamics, social institutions,
environmental justice, cultural values, community identity, history, etc.)
need to be addressed in environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements. However, NEPA states that “economic or social effects
are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental
impact statement.”
In addition to these federal mandates, a growing number of natural
resource managers recognize the importance of including the views and values
of diverse “stakeholders” - including fishing community members - in the
management process. In fact, the Council process was set up specifically
to include stakeholders in the process. People who effectively represent
the concerns of their communities can help create more effective and efficient
fisheries management.
See National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
What Research and Data Collection is Taking Place?
- Currently, Council and NMFS staff are creating a “communities document” which contains community summaries for the West Coast. These summaries will be used in future environmental impact statements and management
decisions.
- The Council's Research and Data Needs document outlines the
Council's needs in these areas. It is updated on a biennial basis.
- The Fisheries Economics Data Program (EFIN) conducts annual
industry cost and effort surveys. It has also collected several
datasets of interest to fisheries economists, including labor and wage
statistics, fuel prices, and measures of changing prices and living conditions.
EFIN is housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
- There has been some discussion of creating a clearinghouse of socioeconomic
fisheries research so that researchers can avoid duplicating efforts and
over-surveying the fishing population. Currently, this is in the
conceptual stage. If you are interested, please contact Jennifer.Gilden@noaa.gov.
Other Resources and publications
- Gilden, Jennifer, ed. 1999. Oregon's Changing Coastal Fishing Communities. Corvallis: Oregon Sea Grant publication #ORESU-O-99-001. Contains overviews of Oregon's coastal fishing communities, as well as discussions of sustainability and community, helping fishing family members cope with change, developing data, and an annotated bibliography of related research. Available from Oregon Sea Grant.
Who to Contact at the Council
Mr. Jim Seger - economist for the Council. Ms. Jennifer Gilden - is an anthropologist who is currently focused on outreach and communication projects. You may contact them by email or by telephone: (503) 820-2280 or toll free 1-866-806-7204.
|
