Linda Mercer: Local Fisheries Management

Linda is the director of the research and monitoring programs at the department of marine resources fisheries management for the state of Maine. She views climate change as adding a layer of uncertainty to what she does. We're just starting to discuss climate change in our policymaking and our science programs, but that has not been our practice and we don't have a firm foundation that is guiding our work.

Fisheries are fully exploited or overexploited right now. The strain on populations will be exacerbated by climate change. Various user groups (e.g. recreational vs. commercial fishermen, or different fishery users) have conflicting incentives.

Linda's work happens at different levels: municipal level for softshell clam management, state level (e.g. quahogs), interstate and international level for migratory fish species. And there are interjurisdiction levels, where Linda's department is not the only one making or enforcing regulations that impact a fishery. Some species are regulated internally, while others (like sea urchins) are regulated by the legislature -- a substantially less flexible and responsive regulatory process. The layered nature of the work makes it complex. We don't have a social scientist in the department or an economist -- that's an area unfortunately that we give short shrift to.

Some questions Linda is thinking about now: Boreal Shrimp -- what will happen to the shrimp fishery? What will be the impact of climate change on migratory species like Atlantic Salmon -- we're dumping a lot of money into restoring habitat from the salmon -- will those efforts pay if climate change hurts the salmon population? Will climate change make lobsters more susceptible to disease? The lobster population in Long Island Sound was recently decimated by disease: if the Gulf of Maine warms substantially will our most What about summer flounder -- we don't have a share of the fishery quota, but if the species migrates north, should we have more of the quota? What species can act as indicators -- the proverbial canary in the coal mine for the Gulf of Maine? What will happen with algal blooms and red tide as precipitation patterns change? How do we make decisions in a regulatory structure that is not very flexible?

We're locked into regulatory regimes that do not adapt. How can we unhook from these so we can respond more quickly and flexibly to change that is coming? We rely on single-species models to make decisions; how can we change our models to make them multi-species and robust, ecosystem based approaches, so we can manage better? We need to identify key vulnerabilities (e.g. if sea level rises, what happens to our eelgrass habitats and our shellfish flats)? How can we deal with these things proactively?

I think we can do some scenario planning. We can do better synthesizing data from multiple sources. There is a lot of data; pulling it all together is a huge task. Maintaining GoMOOS and other long term monitoring systems is critical. Convening interdisciplinary work groups more will help. We need to move closer to ecosystem level management -- not just at a single-species level, and not just within particular political boundaries.

Q: is there a systematic approach within your department to move toward ecosystem management?
A: at the state level, no. We haven't jumped into that arena yet. The feds have, a little bit. The Canadians have, a bit. The state planning office has looked a little at small bay-scale ecosystem management level. This is an arena for more research and grant work.

Q: You brought up species migration and the possible scenario of a northern state benefiting from a species migrating north. In such a case, there's not an equal exchange of benefits (the northern state gains but the southern state that loses the resource does not!). Will there be resistance to regulation or shifting fisheries rights like that?
A: It'll be a difficult discussion. Boats migrate north and follow the species, but of course some states won't want to give up to other states. I can't think of an example where one state agreed to willingly give up its rights to a resource. But if the resource swims away, they might not have a choice....

Q: to both Linda Mercer and William Brennan: What's it like to sit in the position as stewards of a resource and the gatekeeper of conservation of that resource? How do you balance the human impacts of conserving a resource when it conflicts with economically using or exploiting that resource -- when some human beings will be seriously impacted by your decisions.
A: It's really hard to do. Our offices have an "economic development" mandate as well as a wildlife conservation mandate. It's no different than any other public policy endeavor where you have competing public policy interests. Different stakeholders with conflicting interests have a seat at the table with us. That doesn't make it easy.

Q: by Sean Mahoney of the Conservation Law Foundation: How do "market" and "non-market value" factor into your balancing act when weighing your decision about the use or conservation of a resource.
A: Most of the time we don't have good economic information when we have to make a decision. We base things on biological science data that we have, tempered by social policy that we have -- do 5 people or 500 people come to the public hearing we have on a topic. And what do they have to say? That's our social impact data. Without economic data, we mostly get biased opinions (and short-term perspectives) from locally impacted people.
A: William Brennan -- the short term perspective is pervasive, even covering the statutes that protect our resources.