Translating the NPFMC’s Climate Readiness Synthesis report

A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report to congressional committees advised our federal fisheries managers to” “identify and prioritize opportunities to enhance the climate resilience of federal fisheries… and develop a plan to implement them.” 

So in October of last year, the Council turned to the Climate Change Task Force — a collection of scientists, managers and industry experts — and assigned them the Herculean task of creating a “Climate Readiness Synthesis” report. This sprawling document would act as a yardstick to assess the “climate readiness” of the current management system, and as a tool to help figure out new policies and strategies to make them more ready.

To quote the report’s Executive Summary: “Climate change has already had large impacts on the Bering Sea fisheries and ecosystem and impacts are expected to increase over the next decade, with largest changes and risks associated with warmest future scenarios (i.e., higher carbon emission scenarios). …” It then cited “the immediate need for climate integrated management advice and information.”

This frank assessment that they are no longer in the driver’s seat has been starkly illustrated by crashes of crab, cod, chums and chinooks that took managers by surprise and occurred despite conservative management practices.

For decades the conceit has been that proactive management could produce predictable results. It has become clear that fishery management in the future will be increasingly reactive, and the results more unpredictable. And that managers will be reacting to an environment that is not theirs to control, but will in fact mostly be a product of our ability as a species to do things like limit carbon emissions. 

In other words, it has become less like kayaking, in which steady paddling gets you to your destination, and more like surfing, in which you must predict when and where the wave will happen, then ride it successfully. According to the Climate Readiness Synthesis report, right now we are surfing while wearing a motorcycle helmet. 

They looked at the climate readiness of the Bering Sea fisheries management system in three sections: first, the nuts and bolts of the management process; second, in terms of the scientific information they use to inform that process; and third, how they incorporate other “various knowledge bases which support climate readiness and adaptation measures” but are outside the officially sanctioned science, like that supplied by indigenous communities.

They scored them on a scale of one to five, with one being “Not Ready”, and five being “Climate Ready.”

The management system itself scored a “2,” or “On the Way” to climate readiness for having “implicit climate variability information associated with some management measures” so that climate information informs management decisions “conceptually.”  

The second area they examined was the scientific basis for their decisions, represented largely by the “Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation” or “SAFE” report. Here they scored a “3,” or “somewhat ready.” Climate information is included in the assessment, but it is baked in, not explicitly discussed in the “assessment model, text or advice.”

The report states “there remains a need for coordination and dedicated resources (personnel time) to synthesize climate change information toward climate-informed advice. We feel these steps are highly feasible and will advance climate readiness rapidly once implemented.” So staff time seems the biggest need there.

Their third section focused on how they integrated other knowledge bases outside the formal scientific process into their assessments. They found that “Integration into the NPFMC/NMFS system of information from the knowledge base of Indigenous communities is extremely limited; integration into the system from industry, agency and other knowledge bases is a bit higher in general.”

Input from industry and agencies like NMFS both get a “2-3” rating. Industry representatives meaningfully participate in Council and Plan Team functions. Agency engagement gets a higher ranking mostly because of the existence of the Council’s Ecosystem Committee. Without that body, an “overall assessment of other activities would be lower ranking.”

And even though the report states: “Community knowledge is expansive and contains detailed information about changes and impacts.” It goes on to say: “There is not a meaningful system of on-ramps for this knowledge to systematically enter into NPFMC/NMFS management and decision-making processes, and [there is a] lack of sufficient collaborative engagement from research and management to bring together other information with community information.” This aspect of the system gets a “1,” or “Not Ready.” 

That is a shame. It is in times like these that the long view is most useful.

Terry Haines was a commercial fisherman in Kodiak for more than 30 years. He now produces the Alaska Fisheries Report for KMXT and is a member of the Kodiak City Council. He can be reached at thaines@city.kodiak.ak.us