5

Next Steps and Current Efforts for Assessing Equity

A core tenet of the equity literature is that distributional equity is only one dimension of equity (see Chapter 2). Distributional equity is inseparable from procedural and recognitional equity, and all of which are embedded in context (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2). The multiple dimensions of equity are interlinked and inextricable. If equity is a goal for fisheries management, a more comprehensive approach is required.

In listening to experts’ presentations, and after reviewing the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) management documents, the committee determined that NMFS has yet to adopt a comprehensive approach to integrating equity in management. As reflected in the statement of task, much of the current interest and work focuses on the distributional nature of economic benefits. The committee heard of very few examples—and none that were fully operational at the regional scale—of participatory approaches to enhance procedural or recognitional equity that had succeeded in incorporating the perspectives of traditionally underserved communities, or that could demonstrate more equitable processes as well as outcomes stemming from management decisions. Under a more complete framing of equity, categories of data and information and methodologies for collection are developed within broader processes that engage the diverse and sometimes conflicting knowledges and values associated with fisheries, as well as perceptions of what is considered equitable distribution (criteria) and how it can be measured. Processes themselves need to be sensitive and responsive to equity concerns associated with public participation and engagement, both generally and for disadvantaged groups. While such processes may not result in a universally shared understanding of what constitutes an equitable distribution of benefits and costs, they can increase understanding of and tolerance for outcomes.

In this chapter, the committee explores the challenges associated with a more complete approach to equity. These challenges relate to both structure and methodology. Subsequently, the chapter outlines elements of several programs and efforts, both within and outside NMFS, that could inform (but would not by themselves constitute) a holistic approach to equity considerations.

CHALLENGES TO DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO EQUITY

The committee recognizes that operationalizing a comprehensive approach to equity will be challenging. These challenges, combined with the recommendations in Chapter 4 calling for an expanded definition of beneficiaries and benefits, may make a more comprehensive approach to equity seem daunting. However, many staff at NMFS are already aware of the need for and are taking steps toward this approach. Whether describing the importance of nonmonetary benefits, such as fish for food or culture, or identifying important beneficiaries along supply chains, or pointing to the inadequacy of formal public consultations as a means to ensure procedural equity, evidence presented to the committee frequently emphasized both the need for and the challenges associated with expanding efforts to support and measure equity in fisheries management.

A prominent example of ongoing work supporting a more complete approach to equity is the NMFS Equity and Environmental Justice Strategy (EEJS), which acknowledges that underserved communities experience several barriers to receiving “fair treatment and meaningful involvement in NOAA Fisheries” (NMFS, 2023b). These barriers relate to aspects of NMFS’s structure and operations, as well as those associated with underserved communities. Both sources of structural challenge have contextual foundations. In acknowledging these barriers, the committee notes that NMFS has already conducted substantive work considering the inseparable multi-dimensional nature of equity, and how challenging the task of addressing equity in that way will be.

The first barrier outlined in the EEJS is unawareness of underserved communities. NMFS acknowledges that it has yet to fully identify underserved communities, noting that “without recognition of underserved communities, their needs cannot be documented or addressed” (NMFS, 2023).

Underserved communities face structural barriers (e.g., laws, regulations, policies, inadequate political representation, territorial residence); the “criteria for allocation of resources may be based on historical ownership or access, creating services for the largest number of people, or generating the greatest net benefits, which may exclude underserved communities” (NMFS, 2023b). In many places, permit and quota allocation decisions by NMFS have long histories, with some quota allocation programs in place for nearly 40 years. Although some of these legacy programs were designed with equity goals in mind (e.g., to retain capacity in the small boat sector or guard against consolidation), monitoring regimes were not structured in ways that allowed for goal assessment. Past management practices and outcomes are part of the context in which any new efforts to support and assess multidimensional equity will be embedded. The history of permit and quota allocation management will shape how current and potential beneficiaries perceive new management efforts both generally and in specific places (e.g., lack of trust may be associated with a specific fishery but also a problem more generally).

The second barrier relates to contextual equity. The long history of some allocation programs will pose challenges for identifying those excluded from participation and benefits in the past. Such excluded potential beneficiaries have been subjects of inequity. Data and information on who was originally excluded from receiving an allocation may be difficult to obtain. How will NMFS account for fishers who have lost access in past allocations or who have been unable to gain access to specific fisheries? This is the problem of “who is in the room.” Individuals and groups that already hold permits and quotas have vested interests and are empowered in current management systems; they are already in the room and may resist management efforts seeking to recognize claims by and meaningfully engage with those who are not. New allocations or reallocations to address equity concerns will need to recognize and contend with the resulting power dynamics.

Third, the EEJS identifies barriers to engagement and accessing services, which appears to relate to procedural justice issues, highlighting the cost, language, geographic, and cultural barri-

ers to meaningful participation. Relatedly, different beliefs about what equity means can exist. For example, Indigenous knowledge and governance systems vis-à-vis natural resource usage can “be at odds with Western management strategies” (NMFS, 2023b).

The fourth barrier addresses the highly hierarchical and complex nature of fisheries management. Addressing this structure can be a daunting goal. Commonly, place-based, context specific, often qualitative or traditional and Indigenous Knowledge that might best inform implementation and assessment of multidimensional equity in fisheries management—particularly recognitional and procedural dimensions—fits uneasily in management regimes that prioritize generalizable, quantifiable data and analyses as critical (and exclusive) inputs to science-based decision-making. As an example, several staff noted both the value of the Voices from the Fisheries Oral History Project, and the challenges with communicating this value to decision-makers. The data fit uneasily, both because they might not be perceived as legitimate and/or they are incommensurable with other data streams. This can create a vicious cycle—if certain types of data are not used in management, then they are not prioritized for regular collection. If they are not collected regularly, then they are seen as less useful to management, and not used. These data issues are related to the capacity issue described below.

The fifth barrier acknowledges that equity is impacted by processes beyond permit and quota allocation. The committee recognizes that the management and allocation of permits and quotas is only one element of fisheries management. Other fisheries and marine management actions undertaken by NMFS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other agencies can be equally impactful on fishers and fishing communities from an equity perspective. Examples of such actions include area closures for biodiversity conservation, offshore wind energy development, endangered species protection, aquaculture leasing and other spatial allocations. The extent to which these other actions are important in particular places will shape the relative importance of distribution in considerations of the assessment of equity. For instance, in the Western Pacific region, loss of access to marine space through the continued expansion of large-scale conservation areas that prohibit commercial fishing may be more of a pressing equity concern for fishers than permits and licensing. Those concerns cannot be addressed by NMFS alone but will require interagency collaboration; many large-scale conservation areas have been established via Presidential Proclamation.

The final barrier, that of capacity, integrates many of the concerns expressed in the preceding five barriers. In gathering evidence to develop its report, the committee heard repeatedly about a lack of expertise and staff capacity to do this work. Despite innovative efforts by staff in the agency, fishery management councils, and regional science centers that could inform multidimensional assessments of equity (including procedural and recognitional equity), the capacity to do the challenging work needed is limited, and existing staff are overburdened. Relatively few social scientists hold staff positions, and a majority of these are trained in economics (Abbott-Jamieson and Clay, 2010). As addressed in Recommendation 3-3, the need to build social science capacity, both human and financial, has been identified in a number of NOAA Science Advisory Board reports (SAB SSRP, 2003; SSWG, 2009; see also Kast et al., forthcoming). The problem of capacity limitations plays out in two ways. First, capacity shortfalls limit the social science work that can be done, including potential work on a comprehensive approach to equity. Importantly, capacity is needed to fully integrate social science as a necessary component of the management process, rather than have these efforts be tied to specific individuals or projects. Specifically relevant to this chapter and this approach to equity, the committee notes that diverse capacity growth is required at the leadership level of NMFS in order to advance equity beyond specific regional analyses or actions, and to lead development of a more inclusive and complete approach. Second, underrepresentation of social science within the agency makes it difficult to communicate the value and importance of the work and mobilize that work to inform management decisions. Lack of capacity is not only

a practical constraint, but also an epistemological one, reinforcing a culture within NMFS that values particular kinds of science, data, and evidence. This same culture will likely shape how recognitional equity, which includes recognition of diverse ways of knowing (e.g., Traditional Knowledge) and worldviews, is conceptualized and operationalized. The lack of capacity to do the work required, combined with a culture that undervalues that work, is part of the context that will shape all of NMFS’s equity work. Similarly, the EEJS turns the lens inward by describing gaps in representation, noting the lack of diversity within NMFS, including the councils, which may lead to “lack of awareness … and crucial gaps in expertise” (NOAA, 2023b). For example, Council staff and bodies in the North Pacific recently participated in a cultural awareness training hosted by the First Alaskans Institute. The training covered topics related to Alaska Native Tribes, their governance, history, and cultures with the goal of enhancing knowledge, understanding, trust and equitable relationships with Alaska Native communities.

The six barriers that the committee identifies are significant obstacles to enacting a comprehensive approach to equity. The committee acknowledges examples exist where participatory and inclusive processes have been used in framing fishery management decisions. The first example involves King Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) fisheries in the Southeast United States. Miller et al. (2010) developed a participatory modeling approach which started by carefully evaluating constituencies that had a role in the fishery, including commercial and recreational fishers, tournament organizers, shoreside businesses, managers, and nongovernmental organizations. Equal numbers of representatives participated in all meetings. The policy outcome was reached by a consensus process determined by the participants to reflect their values. Another example involves dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) fisheries in the U.S. South Atlantic. These fisheries are characterized as having limited biological data and an array of different fisheries seeking to catch them. A participatory modeling approach was used to understand the physical, biological, social, economic, and institutional aspects of the fisheries in the Southeast United States. (McPherson et al., 2022). The approach which focused on recognition, participation, and distribution of catch represents a process which aims to produce more equitable allocations than would occur otherwise. A final example, also from the Southeast United States involves integrating Local Ecological Knowledge from fishers into effort to understand patterns of red tides along the Florida Gulf Coasts (Blake et al., 2022). Here a participatory workshop inherently recognized the value of fisher’s Traditional Ecological Knowledge in deepening knowledge on the temporal and spatial extents of red tides, and their impacts on human and marine ecosystems. Both cases led to management action. Although these examples led to more equitable outcomes by promoting recognitional and procedural elements of equity, the committee cautions against the conclusion that all NMFS and councils need to do is to hold participatory workshops. Wholesale changes in the approaches and procedures used in coming to management decisions, including thinking about how to encourage and support broad participation, are likely needed if NMFS is to achieve its equity goals. However, the committee recognizes the importance of increased participation involving an increased range of actors will be important in the new approaches that will be developed.

MEASURING WHAT IS VALUED OR VALUING WHAT IS MEASURED

Given the emphasis on methodological approaches in the statement of task, the committee notes the challenges associated with data and information and the assessment of equity concerns. For example, contemporary governance often emphasizes management goals and targets and identifying measurable indicators that can be monitored to assess progress (Campbell et al., 2014; Cooper, 2015). The emphasis is on outcomes or results, rather than administrative processes of policy delivery, and metrological practices to support outcome-based management—for example, setting and measuring standards, targets, criteria, baselines, benchmarks, and thresholds—are seen

as key to good governance, allowing for monitoring, transparency, reporting, and evaluation (Pierre and Peters, 2005).

Shifts in the role and operation of the public sector in the United States and other countries (e.g., new public management [Hughes, 1998] or “governing by goals” [Biermann et al., 2017]) began in earnest in the 1980s as a response to concerns about regulatory overload and failure, and a more general interest in promoting the so-called 3 Es: economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (Hughes, 2003). The history of public-sector management is clearly beyond the scope of this report, but the point is that this way of governing (by goals), for economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (and not equity) reflects social and political decisions; it is not the only way of governing, nor is it inevitable. This also helps to explain why equity of outcomes from past management is difficult to assess; until recently, equity was not a named priority on par with, for instance, efficiency.

Debating the merits of different modes of governance is beyond the scope of this report, but the committee highlights that a governing logic that emphasizes the measurement of indicators to assess progress has important implications for integrating equity into fisheries management. First, this logic emphasizes that which is more easily measured in standardized, quantified, and comparable ways. Second, it reinforces the importance of the things it purports to measure. Measurement practices “do not just reflect reality as it is. They create new realities (calculable objects)” (Barry and Slater, 2002), by defining what is (and is not) worth measuring. If governance progress is evaluated by the achievement of measurable goals, then governance action will be directed toward identified goals and preferentially toward those that are more easily measured. Jacob (2017) diagnoses the relationship between the quality of a goal’s performance measurement system—the existence of indicators, easily measured, using available high-quality data—and performance success.

Multidimensional equity, embedded in context and with key terms subject to interpretation, fits uneasily within a governing logic of standardized, quantified, comparable, and easy-to-measure indicators. Efforts to “make equity fit” by adopting universal definitions and measures risk perpetuating inequities, by imposing top-down conceptualizations “of what constitutes fairness and justice and how these should be measured” (Alexander et al., 2021). This leaves proponents of equity facing a conundrum. On one hand, if equity is integrated into a measurement regime in ways that are comparatively complex, it may not be prioritized for policy implementation. Policy implementers will be attracted to pursuing goals for which success can be shown (i.e., measured) more easily (Taylor, 2009). On the other hand, if measures of equity are oversimplified such that they work well within a measurement regime, the meaning of the measures may be questionable. But if left out altogether, equity is unlikely to be consistently or meaningfully prioritized. Box 5-1 describes efforts in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to expand its measurement regime for protected areas to include assessments of equity, and the challenges of doing so. We also offer later in this chapter the outcome of this effort, The International Institute on Environment and Development’s Site-Level Assessment of Governance and Equity (SAGE; IIED, 2023), as an example of a tool designed specifically to assess equity.

A NOTE ON EPISTEMOLOGY

In this section, the committee highlights the utility of expanding the historical epistemological foundations of fisheries management to more fully address equity concerns. By “epistemological foundations” we mean the ontological assumptions, methods, data types, and analytical practices that are perceived to be valid for establishing “truth” (in this case with respect to fisheries management). This is important to consider given that NMFS is dominated by natural scientists and the relatively small number of social scientists is itself dominated by economists (Chan et al., 2022). This makeup reflects the history of fisheries science and, as a result, quantitative data and associated methods have become most “legible” (Scott, 1998) to managers and are tightly woven into

the fabric of fisheries management decision-making. This emphasis, however, has both strengths and weaknesses for fisheries management generally, and for efforts to address equity specifically.

The committee’s Statement of Task used the terms “data” and “information.” While the terms are used somewhat interchangeably, we refer to data here as numbers or text in their raw forms. These data are produced through a range of methods, from trawl surveys to logbooks to interviews and document reviews. A range of analytical processes make meaning from that raw data, turning it into “information” that could be used in management. For example, in the case of assessing the condition of a fish stock, we might depend (at least in part) on trawl survey data that is entered into a stock assessment model to provide information in a SAFE (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) report that managers or Council members might act on.

Quantitative data are well-positioned to address “what” and “how many” types of questions, including those related to equity. By definition, quantitative data are those that can be expressed numerically, and they tend to focus on the measurement of variables and/or the identification of patterns within and between those variables, often through statistical analyses. This type of data is well-suited for examining large populations, predicting outcomes, enabling direct comparisons, and for conducting experiments where precise measurements are essential. Quantitative data are often produced and utilized through quantitatively oriented methods and analytical/interpretative processes such as biological surveys, stock assessments and bio-economic modeling (and, on the social science “side,” surveys).

There are, however, limitations to what quantitative data/methods can or should address. First, while the expression of information in a numerical form can produce gains in precision, that expression can compromise adequate attention to complexity, context, assumptions, or other

concerns. Second, some phenomena do not lend themselves to quantification. This includes not only “how and why” and process-oriented questions (see below) but also outcomes from environmental interactions (including in fisheries) where quantification can be challenging. The 2022 report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) provides a rich description of some of these challenges, as well as a range of methods (both qualitatively and quantitatively oriented) to address them. Third, while quantitative data are often described as “objective,” the objectivity of quantitative data has been a point of critique. The assertion of objectivity has led to concerns that inescapable underlying subjectivities, assumptions, and biases can be masked by presenting numerical information as objective truth.

Qualitative data, on the other hand, often seek to answer “why” and “how” questions as well as to characterize factors that are not easily quantifiable. This includes expressing underlying meanings and motivations and exploring, among other things, social phenomena, processes, human behavior, and complex interactions (such as those within a fisheries social-ecological system). Qualitative approaches can provide the “rich detail” that can usefully describe aspects of context (historical, political, socio-economic, biophysical, etc.) that can be critical in situating and interpreting all data. Qualitative data are essential for the multi-dimensional conceptualization of equity described here. Qualitative data tend to be produced through a range of methods, such as interviews, ethnographies, focus groups, workshops, and other approaches. Though currently less systematically used in federal fisheries management decision-making, these methods can be extraordinarily useful. The utility of ethnographic approaches in informing government agency actions (including NMFS), for example, has been explicitly recognized by the Government Accountability Office.¹

Qualitative data/methods, of course, also have limitations. There are perceptions that qualitative data/methods are subjective, highly contextualized, difficult to replicate and non-generalizable (in the sense often meant in the natural sciences). The committee acknowledges these debates, but notes that applying evaluation criteria developed for quantitative studies to qualitative ones is often inappropriate (Given, 2008a,b). For example, Yin (2014) argues for the generalizability through theoretical interrogation, where qualitative studies, when linked to theory, provide insights and understanding beyond the specifics of the case at hand.

The committee further notes that mixed methods approaches that use methodological sequencing and or triangulation to combine the strengths and weaknesses of different data types (and associated methods) could be useful in addressing management (including equity) concerns (Murray et al., 2016). For example, some distributional outcomes might lend themselves to quantified assessments, while others may not. Likewise, assessments of procedural elements such as the frequency of public input meetings or the number attendees might lend themselves to quantification, but the quality of the overall process or the power dynamics within and across the stages of that process, might resist quantification. Coupling quantitative information with qualitative data might therefore facilitate assessment of whether the procedure was equitable.

Finally, the committee notes that because the quantitative/qualitative distinctions described above are rooted in western scientific knowledge systems, they share both underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions that are not shared in all places and by all groups involved in, or affected by, fisheries management decisions. This can and does include equity concerns. As described in Chapters 2 and 4 there has been an increasing attention to Indigenous Knowledge at the U.S. federal level, including within NOAA. The committee sees this as a much needed expansion of what counts as “valid” when making fisheries management decisions, particularly in Indigenous contexts, including those related to equity.

___________________

¹ See https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-03-455.

MOVING FORWARD: RECENT ADVANCES IN IMPROVING EQUITY IN MANAGEMENT

Although progress on equity in fisheries will not be simple or quick, recent work suggests potential paths forward. A comprehensive approach to equity that includes considerations of the criteria for subjects of equity, along with distributional, recognitional, procedural, and contextual dimensions, will be difficult to measure in ways that resonate easily with standardized data collection and management procedures (e.g., collected on fisheries permit applications). For example, focusing on dimensions of equity that are easier to measure (e.g., the distribution of a monetary benefit), with both the benefit and criteria for assessing distributional equity defined by management agencies alone, is an incomplete approach to equity. It ignores nonmonetary benefits, and it ignores procedural and recognitional questions regarding potential beneficiaries who have been subjects of inequity.

However, while measuring procedural and recognitional equity is challenging and fraught, many organizations are working to increase equity of management (see example in Box 5-1). Guides for doing so are emerging (IIED, 2023; Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017), and these provide examples that might be modified and enhanced to support the diagnosis and implementation of multidimensional equity in fisheries management. The committee reiterates Recommendation 3-2: work on a NMFS technical guidance document is critical. This section provides an overview of key NMFS efforts, followed by examples of work in other fields that could be useful to inform NMFS’s work on equity. This is not intended to be an extensive review but to illustrate the diversity of resources that might prove helpful.

The NMFS Equity and Environmental Justice Strategy Document

The NMFS EEJS document lays out a series of goals, core areas, and objectives. These elements touch on aspects of both procedural and recognitional justice; in sum, NMFS acknowledges the importance of process and participation in understanding and more equitably shaping the distribution of impacts. The remainder of the document essentially represents an aspirational framework and includes a series of tables that break down the core areas into a series of necessary actions, metrics, and necessary resources. Critically, the document notes that “each geographic region (e.g., Southeast, Pacific Islands) and national program (e.g., Office of Protected Resources, Office of Habitat Conservation) will create an EEJ implementation plan that is consistent with applicable law, specific and responsive to the needs of underserved communities, and allows for their input” (NMFS, 2023b). Given the importance of a contextually-based and multi-dimensional nature of equity, this devolved strategy will be more effective than a centralized process. However, the committee also notes that, given the wide diversity of communities and fisheries, developing effective implementation plans will likely demand different processes, data collection efforts, and modes of recognition and participation both within and across regions. The place-based approach expressed in the EEJS reinforces capacity concerns that the committee has expressed. For example, development of these plans needs to include traditionally underrepresented groups in the management process. Reaching these individuals may require innovative approaches, continuous engagement with communities, and financial support to implement these approaches.

NMFS Guidelines for the Assessment of Social Impact of Fisheries Management Actions

Social impact assessments, which have long been part of NOAA’s decision-making, are required for NMFS management actions under both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

and the Magnuson-Steven Act (MSA). Guidance related to these assessments has often noted the importance of addressing equity and environmental justice concerns, although this has not been the focus. For example, in a paper that followed from a workshop convened by NMFS in 2004, Pollnac et al. (2006) noted that social impact assessments need to occur at scales from the individual to firms, families, and communities; that they need to be comprehensive in nature (they suggest that well-being should be the “dependent variable”) and that:

In 2007, NOAA released revised guidelines for social impact assessments in fisheries (NMFS, 2007). This document affirms the mandate for assessing social impacts of fisheries management decision-making, suggests an assessment process that involves an initial scoping phase guided by a professional social scientist (anthropologist[s] or sociologist[s]), and points to the central importance of both fishing communities and the “minority populations and low-income populations” described in Executive Order 12898 (White House, 1994). Because the assessments are intended to predict the social impacts of a range of alternative management scenarios (including the status quo), the document distinguishes a social impact assessment from (1) economic or ecological impact assessments, (2) overviews (such as those included in Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation [SAFE] reports), or (3) affected human environment components of environmental impact statements. The document also lays out a range of (and advice on implementing) possible qualitative and quantitative methodological techniques, including literature reviews, secondary data analyses, surveys, focus groups, and interviews.

Most recently, a 2020 technical report provides a step-by-step handbook for planning and conducting social impact assessments. The document builds on the 2007 guidance document and includes a wide range of social impacts that could be precipitated by various management actions. The diverse nature of these impacts points to the diverse nature of the benefits derived from fisheries outlined in Chapter 4.

Guidance for Implementing the California’s Marine Life Management Act

Socioeconomic Guidance for Implementing the California Marine Life Management Act (Pomeroy et al., 2018) emerged from efforts by the State of California to implement the 1998 Marine Life Management Act (MLMA). The MLMA included a variety of socioeconomic goals and objectives, including fairness, for management of the state’s fisheries. In the 2001 MLMA Master Plan, socioeconomic information was included as “essential fishery information,” and the guidance document was published to support managers’ abilities to “effectively integrate socioeconomic information, evaluate management options, anticipate responses, achieve desired outcomes, and avoid unintended consequences” (Pomeroy et al., 2018). The guidance document identifies categories of information on human dimensions of fisheries required to meet MLMA goals and objectives, including information on demographics, operations, and employment, as well as values, preferences, needs, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and relationships and networks (Table 5-1; see Pomeroy et al., 2018, for a full listing).

Although the document is not specific to equity, many of the categories of data and information are relevant. For example, understanding attitudes, beliefs, and opinions can be “useful for developing and evaluating allocation measures that are perceived to be fair, for gauging support or

TABLE 5-1 Examples of Questions About the Fisheries Human System Relevant to MLMA Socioeconomic Objectives

NOTES: Original table continues with questions on management system and ecological objectives. MLMA = Marine Life Management Act.

SOURCE: Pomeroy et al. (2018).

opposition for management measures, and for identifying misinformation and misunderstandings related to fisheries and their management” (Pomeroy et al., 2018). It addresses fair allocation of catch directly, mostly as a distributional concern, but with some implicit reference to other dimensions. For example, the question of what criteria are used for allocating catch is accompanied by a question of how fishery participants themselves define fairness (recognitional equity; see Table 5-3 in this report). Pomeroy et al. (2018) also emphasizes the need for conflict resolution procedures, often included in guidance for procedural equity.

Pomeroy et al. (2018) describes an iterative process of social analyses (informed by NMFS, 2007; reviewed above), which involves building a social baseline, scoping, selecting relevant social

variables for investigation, and synthesizing and analyzing data to address management questions. It reviews and provides guidance on data collection methods relevant for human dimensions research, including literature reviews, archival resource, observation, interviews, focus groups, and surveys, and illustrates how the process and methods were used to inform decision-making in several case study fisheries.

Site-Level Assessment of Governance and Equity

The International Institute for Environment and Development issued a manual for facilitators on site-level assessment of government and equity (SAGE) (IIED, 2023). This document is the result of over a decade of work to support the Convention on Biological Diversity in its efforts to integrate equity into its protected areas target (see Box 5-1). SAGE “is a tool for site-level actors to themselves assess the governance and equity of a PCA [protected and conserved area] and associated conservation interventions, and themselves plan, implement and monitor actions to improve governance” (IIED, 2023). It is a methodology intended to support SAGE facilitators in implementing the methodology.

Although developed in the specific context of protected areas (and mostly for use in developing countries), SAGE is included here because, importantly, it is targeted directly at assessing equity. Recognitional, procedural, and distributional equity are evaluated using a questionnaire. For each equity dimension, SAGE identifies multiple principles (Table 5-2), and each principle has multiple associated themes (IIED, 2023). Themes have associated questions, evaluated on a multiple-choice performance assessment scale. Table 5-3 provides an illustration of the application of the methodology to the second principle in recognitional equity: “Respect for all relevant actors.” Although SAGE does not address contextual equity within the questionnaire, it recognizes context both generally—for example, protected areas’ impact on local people and their use of common pool resources—and specifically in the preparation phase, which includes an actor analysis, site profile and consent, and assessment of six feasibility conditions (including, e.g., whether or not there are high levels of resentment between local communities and park managers). The purpose of SAGE is to assess equity, and its design also reflects attention to equity—for example, engaging a broad scope of actors and seeking informed consent for the assessment to proceed during the preparation phase.

TABLE 5-2 Principles of Equitable Governance

SOURCE: IIED, 2023.

TABLE 5-3 An Illustration of the SAGE Assessment Methodology

SOURCE: Based on IIED (2023).

The Protocol for Identifying, Analyzing, and Incorporating Local Knowledge, Traditional Knowledge, and Subsistence Information into the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Decision-Making Process

The Protocol for Identifying, Analyzing, and Incorporating Local Knowledge, Traditional Knowledge, and Subsistence Information (hereafter, the LKTKS protocol) arose out of a multi-year process of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) to develop the Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan (BSFEP). As a result of increased awareness of the value and importance of accounting for diverse knowledge systems in fishery decision-making, “the Council initiated Action Module 2 of the BSFEP in December 2018, and appointed the LKTKS Taskforce in October 2019 to complete the Action Module’s work” (NPFMC, 2023). In February 2020, two goals for the LKTKS Taskforce were adopted:

1. To create processes and protocols through which the Council can identify, analyze, and incorporate Local Knowledge (LK) and Traditional Knowledge (TK), and the social science of LK and TK, into the council’s decision-making process to support the use of best scientific information available in ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM).
2. To create a protocol and develop recommendations through which the Council can define and incorporate subsistence information into analyses and decision-making.

The LKTKS protocol cites “the urgent need for multiple ways of knowing and understanding the marine environment” in the context of rapid and dramatic change in the Bering Sea ecosystem as motivating its work, along with National Standard 2; the “best scientific information includes western science and the relevant Local Knowledge (LK) and Traditional Knowledge (TK).... These knowledge systems are not ‘anecdotal’ information but are rather complex systems of dynamic and living knowledge” (NPFMC, 2023). As reflected in the goals set for the LKTKS Taskforce, the protocol is directed at supporting the incorporation of local and Traditional Knowledge into the council’s decision-making process, systematically, appropriately, and ethically. This includes being

aware of and responsive to data sovereignty and related issues including who has permission to share knowledge and what happens to that knowledge once it is shared in the public process. To this end, the LKTKS Taskforce identified eight guidelines that can support the integration of local and Traditional Knowledge into council decision-making (Box 5-2).

All of these guidelines, if followed, would advance procedural and recognitional equity, even if they are not labeled as such. For example, the LKTKS protocol speaks directly to the issue of interest in procedural equity, pointing to the time and resources required for local and Traditional Knowledge holders to participate in council decision-making processes, the need to support sharing of local and Traditional Knowledge in ways that are meaningful to the knowledge holders, and the burnout associated with multiple demands on their knowledge, especially when there is little evidence that it impacts management processes (NPFMC, 2023). The Taskforce (NPFMC, 2023):

LEARNING FROM RECENT WORK TO IMPROVE NMFS’ INTEGRATION OF EQUITY IN MANAGEMENT

Recent work on equity supports NMFS in developing a holistic strategy for incorporating equity into management, tailored within regions. Arguably, the devolvement of management processes and decisions to the regional level positions NMFS ahead of other organizations that lack power at smaller scales.

Developing a strategy for equity in management best begins with a diagnosis of current decision-making processes, in terms of both fisheries governance and NMFS’s operations. It would be useful to assess (diagnose) who is represented and what views are represented (recognitional equity)

in decision-making processes related to benefits, and how those processes are structured (procedural equity). A council and its related advisory bodies and decision-making structures could serve as a helpful case study. The committee expect such a study would be both tractable and informative. Similarly, it could be useful to assess to what degree participatory (public and otherwise) processes consider and integrate questions of both recognitional and procedural equity, although this would expand the scope of an initial case study substantially.

Such a review will likely identify a lack of representation and inadequate processes, suggesting a need for progress in procedural and recognitional equity. As discussed previously, capacity constrains NMFS’s engagement in supporting equity. Also, the LKTKS protocol and other documents point out barriers to groups participating in more holistic processes, ranging from costs to histories and cultures of distrust (NPFMC, 2023). The latter issue indicates that NMFS staff need to (1) articulate clear plans early on to assure participants that their voices will be considered and (2) adapt new forms of outreach that acknowledge these past experiences. The issue of prohibitive time and monetary costs supports the committee’s recommendations on capacity and resources. This could include NMFS supporting staff to work with and in communities (e.g., Pomeroy et al., 2018) or funding for a more diverse range of participants to travel and engage in management processes. An example is the rotating of location of the NPFMC’s June meetings through smaller geographic communities.

Technological advances may also provide new opportunities. For example, although the COVID-19 pandemic created short-run challenges for fisheries and fisheries management, it brought about a shift to remote council meetings, which have continued to be livestreamed in some cases. Continuing with or adding remote participation options has the potential to reduce costs of participation and therefore make participation easier. However, unreliable and/or nonexistent Internet access, lack of facilities with technology, lack of proficiency with English, and other factors could continue to serve as barriers to inclusion in formal processes.

While a shift toward a truly holistic approach to equity will take time and resources shorter-term and lower-cost changes may help begin to “move the needle.” NMFS can help to indicate its commitment to improving equity by identifying points in the management process that are inconsistent with policy and could be rethought and modified within a more comprehensive approach to equity. For example, this report highlights SAFE reports for tracking of fishery outcomes and social impact assessments for proposed rulemakings as potential on-ramps to improving equity in fisheries. The committee also suggests that NMFS consider its own structures, composition, collaborative opportunities, and approaches to improve the capacity of NMFS staff at all points in the management process.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This page intentionally left blank.