NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 195
A Large Marine Ecosystem
Voluntary
Environmental Management System Approach
to Fisheries Practices
by Frank J.
Gable
NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 28 Tarzwell Drive,
Narragansett, RI 02882
Print
publication date December 2005;
web version posted April 3, 2006
Citation: Gable FJ. 2005. A large marine ecosystem voluntary environmental management system approach to fisheries practices. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 195; 64 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
Abstract
This
study addresses interdisciplinary aspects of fisheries sustainability
as a part of the large marine ecosystem (LME) modular approach. Consideration
is given to consensus-based voluntary environmental management systems
(VEMS) as an adaptive management aspect of fishing practices being
integral strategic parts of marine ecosystems. A VEMS is a unique means
or tool for managing the impacts of a fisheries enterprise’s
activities on the marine environment. For sustainable planning and
implementing environmental protection measures, the VEMS provides a
structured approach. A VEMS integrates environmental management quality
at various scales into an organization’s everyday operations
as well as its long-term planning.
The VEMS is an important “ecosystem consideration” component
of the LME approach as it is intended to lead toward improved valuation
assessments and movement to sustainability of vulnerable resources.
This document presents a VEMS strategy as a prospective best practice
indicator in the fish and fisheries, socio-economic, and governance
modules of the LME paradigm (see http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme).
Prospective property rights regimes are considered as performance-based
regulations that restrict open access to commercial fishery resources
but can accommodate the VEMS approach. The fisheries practice VEMS,
found in this study, has a geographic focus on the Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME but is applicable to other domestic and/or international
locales and it is meant to promote dialogue on VEMS being a scientifically
based (or best available science standard see: NRC 2004a) tool for
ecosystem-oriented management of living marine resources.
INTRODUCTION
The
ISO 14001 is a known voluntary international standard that establishes
the requirements for a VEMS that emphasizes an organization’s continuous
improvement in environmental management quality and protection. Thus,
the objective is for an entity engaged in fishing practices to constitute
a VEMS that is integrated with its operations. An ISO 14000 series
voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) is portrayed in this
document as a performance-based measure that can be utilized around the
world and as a best available science-based procedure for protecting
the marine environment. Hanna (2002 p. 4) hypothesizes that the “existence
of property rights (in fisheries) would allow the focus to shift toward
performance-based regulation, where the right to fish depends on certification
of meeting specified conditions.” Taken literally, a review and
synthesis of the science literature finds that Hanna’s hypothesis
above which would include “dedicated access privileges” in
a U.S. fishery is capable of fostering performance towards sustainable
ecosystem-approaches to fisheries, that is, to an ISO 14001 standard
voluntary environmental management system (VEMS).
Gober (2000 p. 8) points out “modern synthesis is organized around
ideas, concepts and theories. It emphasizes discovering strategic
connections…,” “it may involve linking already discovered
ideas in innovative ways, in grappling with large and complicated human
and natural systems, and in looking for analogies in seemingly unconnected
fields.” Thus, it is proffered that the application of voluntary
environmental management systems (VEMS) as outlined here will lead toward
continuous improvement in large marine ecosystem environmental quality
as a science policy tool for fostering stakeholder participation toward
sustaining living marine resources. The document commences with
an overview of what a voluntary VEMS approach to ecosystem sustainability
encompasses. From there the focus is on “legitimacy” of
specific VEMS protocols for use in living marine resource sustainability
principally in the United States prior to elaboration on the international
VEMS standard known as an ISO 14001.
Case examples are provided in Appendix One, in relation to “market
forces” in American fisheries management, including contemporary
herring-haddock interactions in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf
Large Marine Ecosystem. The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) paradigm
is briefly reviewed as an adaptive stewardship strategy in Appendix Two,
followed by a short discussion on the Marine Stewardship Council as another “new” VEMS
in fisheries. An approach to “certification” in
VEMS is given in Appendix Three. The manuscript contains figures
and tables that illustrate and highlight specific key points and concepts
for the reader.
One suggestion for integrating marine species management into a workable
ecosystem-oriented voluntary environmental management system (VEMS),
can include partnering to maximize the potential for achieving objectives
(see Figure 1). To enhance global, regional, or local accountability,
a marine life management system should recognize and address the overall
ecosystem (see: Sherman & Duda 1999a&b; von Zharen 1998 p. 106).
Dobson et al., (2005 p. 488) refer to “human dimensions” “as
the study and practice of human values related to natural resources,
how those values impact and are manifested in management, and how humans
affect or are affected by natural resources management decisions” (see
also: Hennessey and Sutinen, 2005). “Challenges of integrating
ecological and human dimensions of management remain as important today
as they were forty years ago” (Dobson et al., 2005 p. 487). The
human dimension is at the very core of the fishing and seafood industries
(Kaplan and McCay, 2004 p. 258). It is also of note that according
to Daily et al., (2000 p. 396) “in a democratic society, values
used in social decision-making ought to be derived from those held by
its individual citizens and ought not be imposed by the state.” The
ISO 14000 family of standards is depicted and elaborated herein
as a tool to foster voluntary and sustainable human-environment interactions.
WHAT IS AN ISO 14000 APPROACH TO MARINE ECOSYSTEM
SUSTAINABILITY?
The International Organization for Standardization ISO 14000 series
is a recognizable developing flexible methodology for organizations
seeking to incorporate internationally and/or domestic defensible environmental
management policy into their marine business operations. The
ISO is a Geneva-based registered non-governmental, international organization
and facilitator of international standards in industrial and environmental
practice. Its members are governmental standardization organizations
from 120 nations, including the United States. Motivated to foster
world trade after World War II, it was created in 1946 to initially
address electronic, communication, trade, and manufacturing standards. Traditionally,
ISO standards are embraced on a voluntary basis, yet select countries
have regularly adopted them, thereby making them obligatory (Sproul,
1998a and 1998b p. 141).
From a historical perspective Sproul (1998b p. 141) relates that in
the early 1980’s ISO branched out to develop total quality management
standards and life cycle analysis. In 1987, the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) issued the ISO 9000 series standards
for business management and manufacturing (Eccleston, 2003 p. 61; see
also Benezech et al., 2001). Concern for environmental quality
eventually led ISO to focus and negotiate on developing similar standards
for a transparent voluntary environmental management system (VEMS)
that could be used internationally. Thus building on the ISO
9000 model, the initial generic standards governing the ISO 14000 series
VEMS were adopted and published in September of 1996. Analogous
to its sibling ISO 9000, the ISO 14000 series describes management
procedures rather than specific environmental performance standards
(Eccleston, 2003 p. 61). Aspects of ISO 9000 have subsequently
been incorporated into international policy to “facilitate trade
and remove…barriers” (Sproul, 1998b p. 141). In
1992, the ISO Technical Board authorized establishment of Technical
Committee number 207 (TC 207). This bureau whose secretariat
is in Ottawa with the Canadian Standards Association, was tasked with
the responsibility to oversee and coordinate the diversity of activity
associated with international voluntary environmental management systems
(VEMS) development. In 1993, the ISO established a Technical Committee
(TC207) that consisted of representatives from participating nations
the world over, to develop and produce a set of unified, voluntary
standards for environmental management that could be accepted and implemented
worldwide (Quazi et al., 2001 p. 526). The ISO 14000 standard
has been developed to help any organization (entity) in any country
to meet the goal of “sustainable development” and environmental
friendliness (Quazi et al., 2001 p. 527), important ingredients in
LME-oriented fisheries science policy. The ISO has accumulated extensive
inter-governmental and ministerial networking at the national policy
development level and has considerable historical international standardization
experience. Therefore, many international researchers and also
American policy makers (see: Connaughton, 2002a; and 2001) suggest
or advocate an ISO 14000 protocol ought to be pursued (see later).
The ISO 14000 standards are international voluntary consensus standards
(Quazi et al., 2001 p. 526). These industrial practice standards
were developed by the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), located in Geneva, Switzerland. The goal of the ISO is
to develop standards on a worldwide basis to allow commerce to transcend
national boundaries without creating trade barriers (Quazi et
al., 2001 p. 526). This is a goal that complements and can be
practiced within the internationally recognized large marine ecosystem (LME)
delineated areas whose marine living resources are typically marketed
and traded via negotiated international agreements, since international
trade in seafood is now valued at about U.S. $60 billion annually (Mansfield,
2003 p. 1). The standards are process oriented they do not in
and of themselves impose or establish goals or limits. Instead,
they establish voluntary environmental management system guidelines
or guidance that help organizations (entities) ensure compliance with
customer, industry or regulatory limits and/or requirements. They
can be considered “rooted in the concept of ecosystem sustainability” (see
Baragne, 2003 p. 196) and criterion for “best practices.” (see:
e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000 p. 732). According to von Zharen
(1998 p. 85), she notes that the VEMS must have public and prospectively
global support in order for comprehensive measures to improve these
efforts. This would include support for international collaboration
in marine scientific research and the development of “best practices.” (e.g.,
Sainsbury et al., 2000; Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003; Gable, 2004).
According to Sainsbury et al., (2000 p. 732), fishery management is “implemented
at the operational level through management plans, administrative regulations,
and the decisions of individual managers or management bodies.” Choices
and tradeoffs often need to be made concerning which of several alternative
management actions provides the best social and environmental compromise
among conflicting objectives. Therefore it’s necessary
to be able to forecast the likely consequences of prospective management
actions to the targeted objectives. This may entail answering questions
such as: what specific outcomes are intended by the management action?;
what information is needed to support management decisions?; and how
would success or failure be measured and detected (Sainsbury, et al.,
2000 p. 732)?
Broad policy goals are linked to individual management actions at
the operational level, and through operational management strategies. Sainsbury
et al., (2000 p. 732; Figure 2, Figure 3) suggests that the general framework
for operational management strategies is described in many standards,
such as the International Standards Organization ISO 14000 standards
for environmental management systems. Accordingly, they suggest
the ISO 14000 and other such frameworks emphasize the combination of:
A) synoptically evaluating the performance of the management system
as a whole (not just isolated parts); B) specifying measurable targets
and performance measures that relate to the objectives; C) monitoring
the managed system; D) iterative and “feed-back” decision-making
based on monitoring data e.g. “double loop analysis;” E)
developing a procedure for implementing management decisions; and,
F) evaluating organizational environmental performance.
“Development and evaluation of operational management strategies
to achieve broadly stated management objectives is neither easy nor
straightforward, although considerable progress has been achieved during
the last two decades, at least for target species. The scientific
methods for evaluating fishery-management strategies were advanced
through ‘adaptive management’ mechanisms” (Sainsbury
et al., 2000 p. 732 and references cited therein). It is noted
that Jentoft (1998 p. 181) proffers that there is no “consensus
as to what constitutes relevant knowledge and information in fisheries
management. Neither is there any widespread agreement on goals
or means.”
The aims of the ISO 14000 series are to provide guidance for developing
a comprehensive approach to environmental management and for standardizing
some noteworthy and recognizable environmental tools of analysis such
as (environmental) labeling and life cycle assessment applicable to
the fishing industry as a whole. Allison (2001, p. 945) writes that
an ISO 14000 series VEMS is capable of addressing many of the necessary
conditions for ‘green chain’ life cycle-oriented certification
from production to disposal (see also Sproul, 1998a&b).
The standards are meant to be complementary to national regulatory
regimes and are not intended to replace or duplicate a country’s
regulatory system (Quazi et al., 2001 p. 527). In effect, use
of a VEMS is designed to demonstrate an organization’s facilitation
and knowledge of environmental sustainability commitments in a transparent
documented manner. Thus, the ISO 14000 series VEMS traditionally
consists of five principles as depicted in Figure 4.
The most commonly used framework for a VEMS is the one developed by
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the ISO
14001 standard. Established in 1996, this framework is the official
international standard for a VEMS (EPA, 2005). The five main stages
of a VEMS, as defined by the ISO 14001 standard are discussed below
(see also Figure 4):
- Commitment and Policy: top management (e.g. fisheries
permit holder, boat captain, vessel owner, executive director of a
fisheries organization) commits to environmental improvement and establishes
an enterprise wide environmental policy with attainable objectives
and goals. The policy thus becomes the foundation of the VEMS,
and the benchmark for performance evaluation that occurs later.
- Planning: by
example, a fisheries organization first identifies environmental
aspects of its operations. Environmental
aspects are those items, such as indirect and regulatory bycatch,
discards, highgrading, etc., which can have detrimental cascading
impacts on the large marine ecosystem. In general, the organization
then determines which aspects are significant by choosing criteria
considered most important by the organization within the constraints
of applicable prevailing legislation. For example, a fisheries
organization may choose crew safety and health, environmental compliance,
and cost as its criteria. Once significant environmental aspects
are determined, an organization sets specified objectives and targets. An
objective is an overall environmental goal (e.g. minimize bycatch
and discards). A
target is a detailed, quantified requirement that arises from the objectives
(e.g. reduction of bycatch of groundfish by 25% by September 2006).
The final part of the planning stage is devising an action plan for
meeting the targets (e.g., Wu and Hunt, 2000). This includes
designating (crew) responsibilities, establishing a schedule and timeline,
and outlining clearly defined steps to meet the targets (EPA, 2005).
- Implementation: an organization follows
through with the action plan using the necessary resources (human,
financial, etc.). An
important component is organization – for instance crew training
and awareness for all hands, or employees of a fish processing plant. Other
steps in the implementation stage include documentation, following
operating procedures, and setting up internal and external communication
lines for interested stakeholders and consumers or publicly traded
company shareholders. Then the enterprise using “best available
scientific” methodology (see e.g. NRC 2004a) evaluates its environmental
performance to see whether its objectives and targets are being met.
- Evaluation and Monitoring: an organization
monitors its operations to evaluate whether its targets are being
met, if not, the organization takes appropriate adjustment corrective
action (e.g. avoiding areas of juvenile fish or in-season spawning
grounds; gear adjustments). Oftentimes for more efficiency the evaluation
is performed by an independent accredited third party, that can lead
toward “certification.”
- Review: top management reviews the results
of the evaluation to see if the VEMS is functioning as designed. Management
determines whether the original environmental policy is consistent
with organizational values. The action plan is then revised to
optimize the effectiveness of the VEMS. The review stage creates
a double loop of analysis of continuous improvement and learning for
an organization in a transparent fashion (see also Benezech et al.,
2001; Figure 5). The cycle (i.e. “double-loop analysis”)
repeats, and continuous improvement occurs, all within a framework
of adaptive management to government regulations and industry “best
practices” (see e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000; Sainsbury and Sumaila,
2003; Gable, 2004).
According to Eccleston and Smythe (2002 p. 2) one objective of the
ISO 14000 VEMS series is to provide organizations with an internationally
consistent system for controlling, measuring, and ultimately reducing
the environmental impacts generated by their ongoing business operations. It
may also help managers to better implement fisheries catch permitted
or allocation mechanisms in a more environmentally sustainable manner. Without
further specific elaboration here, by example, ISO 14001 specifications
describe a multitude of elements that need to be contained in any VEMS
that is to receive certification to International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standards.
Like its predecessor sibling, ISO 9000 life cycle standards, the 14000
series focuses on management standards, not on specific performance
standards and procedures because these are left to individual countries
or entities, that can adaptively apply them to their specific needs
and environmental situation. This would work well in differentiated
boreal, temperate, tropic, oceanic, and semi-enclosed LME’s throughout
the world. Unlike Environmental Impact Assessment/Analysis (EIA),
the ISO 14001 VEMS protocol was designed specifically for competitive
entity’s (see also: Hart, 1995) to adopt on a voluntary
basis (Eccleston and Smythe 2002 p. 2).
According to Darnall (2001, p. 2) ISO 14001 is based on Shewhart’s
(1931) “plan, do, check, act” model towards achieving continuous
improvement (see also Blackburn, 2004; Figure 6). Darnall emphasizes
that by using this framework, organizations systematically take into
consideration their environmental aspects and impacts. They do
so, as depicted earlier, by taking into account five broad factors:
an environmental policy, evaluation and goal setting, implementation,
monitoring and corrective action procedures, and management review. By
processing through each step of the cycle the aim (goal) of the organization
(entity) is to achieve lower environmental impact of goods, products,
services, or information, thus, providing for environmental sustainable
ecosystem development. It is represented graphically as a circle
or wheel (see Figure 4) because it involves repeating the same steps
over and over in a continuous effort to improve operational processes. It
is akin to “double loop analysis” that Olsen (1999; Olsen
et al., 1998) subscribes to in integrated coastal area management (for
suggested contents of an ecosystem area management plan for sustainable
fisheries see Table 1). Organizations which certify to ISO 14001
typically would have independent external auditors review and verify
their VEMS to make sure that it conforms to the five broad categorical
factors (Darnall, 2001 p. 2).
At a more advanced level, ISO 14001 VEMSs have the potential to move
organizations towards embracing, for example, seafood product stewardship
principles and utilizing life-cycle cost analysis (Brown and Sylvia,
1994). In doing so, ISO 14001 may help firms to better scrutinize
the environmental impact of their services, and develop closer working
relationships with ownership and “crew,” thus elevating
and evaluating environmental concerns throughout the organization (Darnall,
2001 p. 3; Hart, 1995). If entities consider holistically all
aspects of their organizational structure, this awareness may facilitate
the prevention of shifting environmental harm from one subsystem to
another or rather, one directed fishery to another non-permitted resource. Such
management practices, however, require proficiencies in transferring
knowledge and generating momentum among human capacity to proactively
manage their environmental footprint. The example of alleviating
incidental and regulatory bycatch and discards by fishing vessels is
a prime statutory contemporary example (Powers, 2005; Hall and Mainprize,
2005). From the perspective of Jennings and Zandbergen (1995
pp. 1040 & 1041) they also require an ability to push environmental
initiatives deep into the organization’s “lessons learned
psyche” to create congruence (harmony) across the strategic,
structural and learning systems to foster and ensure ecosystem sustainability. These
factors in combination assist business to achieve greater organizational
efficiency (Hart, 1995 p.988) and are critical for achieving proactive
environmental sustainability. They are also crucial in assisting
organizations (firms) to maintain or gain competitive advantage (e.g.
Hart, 1995 p. 987; Figure 7) especially in regulated industries such
as fisheries where “dedicated access privileges” may become
the 21st century norm in the United States (CEQ, 2004);
what Hart (1995 p. 995) refers to as “preferred access” to
important, but limited resources.
As many of those who follow the regulated fishing industry know, the
U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations provide detailed
requirements for performing a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect,
and cumulative environmental impacts (see e.g., Eccleston and Smythe
2002 p. 6; Boling, 2005). The ISO 14000 standards requires that
a VEMS includes investigation of significant “environmental aspects,” which
are specific activities that affect the marine environment. Although
these environmental aspects must be determined, rigorous evaluation
of their resulting consequences or impacts on environmental resources
is neither mandatory nor required especially in a scenario style command
and control regulatory framework environment.
Eccleston and Smythe (2002 p. 8) proffer that in practice, however,
there is no reason why Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and VEMS
processes either could or should not proceed in tandem (see also Boling,
2005). The aim or goal being a properly integrated EIA/VEMS,
to ensure that monitoring plans are effectively designed and executed.
(Eccleston and Smythe 2002 p. 8). Monitoring is also a paramount
tool in LME science policy to measure environmental conditions over
time (see; e.g. Sherman, 1994; Sherman and Duda, 1999a & b). Integration
of EIA/VEMS is especially appropriate where government decisions are
required, and where government (or government-regulated) enterprises
will carry out the operations. The EIA (e.g. Figure 8) can identify
the kinds of significant impacts that a VEMS should address, and the
VEMS can then ensure that adequate monitoring, reporting, and self-correcting
take place in a transparent mode. (For another view of the EIA see
Gray, 1999).
Eccleston (2003 p. 61) maintains that strong parallels exist between
the scope, aims and objectives of adaptive management, the requirements
of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the specifications
for implementing an ISO 14000-consistent VEMS (see Figure 9, Figure 10). Seymour
and Ridley (2005 p. 322) proffer that an ISO 14001 VEMS approach can
be synergistically incorporated into an integrated catchment or watershed
management protocol, which is in effect, the linked “landward” portion
of large marine ecosystems.
Boling (2005 p. 10026) advises that a “VEMS is a policy and
management approach that may be particularly applicable for adaptive
management of actions subject to National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review” in the United States. Boling (2005 p. 10026)
emphasizes that the “plan-do-check-act/continual improvement
approach (see also Darnall, 2001 p. 2; Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000
p. 501) used by ISO 14001 and similar models has proven to be effective
as applied to environmental management” (see Figure 6). With
regard to elements of VEMS and NEPA programs an ISO 14001 protocol “provides
a credible framework for identifying and meeting the legal and other
obligations that are established through the public process. It
does not pretend to intrude upon authorities of government agencies
to define goals for environmental performance.” Thus, an
ISO 14001 VEMS does not replace NEPA, but rather provides a systematic
framework for effectively identifying and meeting NEPA obligations
(Boling, 2005 p. 10026). Boling (2005 p. 10029) states that the
ISO 14001 standard “requires that an organization establish and
maintain procedures for taking action to mitigate any impacts caused,
and for initiating and completing corrective and preventive action.” The “plan,
do, check, act” approach of ISO 14001 is intended to encourage
organizations to integrate a VEMS into their normal every-day activities
(Boling, 2005).
The ISO 14001 VEMSs are principled on a highly systematic framework
that at a basic level focuses on various environmental strategies which
minimize waste and prevent pollution (e.g. including fisheries driftnets
i.e. ghost fishing; bycatch, discards and highgrading) (Darnall, 2001
p. 3). These strategies are people intensive, and depend upon
concerted skill development through employee or “crew” involvement
(e.g., Hart, 1995 p. 988) and work in teams (e.g., Hart, 1995 p. 989). They
also rely on substantial internal organizational evaluation, monitoring,
knowledge development, and operational factors (Darnall, 2001 p. 3,
Hart, 1995). They are a “best practices” match for
organizations (entities) with either fishery business operations or
scientific study in large marine ecosystems (see: Sainsbury et. al.,
2000 p. 732; Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003; Gable, 2004). In effect,
they fit well within the LME modular approach (see e.g. Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13; Sherman, 2005; Sherman and Duda, 1999 a&b) with a focus
in the socio-economic, fish and fisheries, and governance modules.
According to Sproul, (1998a&b) an international organizational
standard (ISO) framework ought to be utilized for developing broad
principles of sustainable fishery certification, within which fishery
specific specifications could be provided. He maintains that
several standards for fisheries principles exist, for example, including
the voluntary United Nations (UN) “Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries” (see: Garcia, 2000), and the UN Conference on Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks which entered into force
in 2001 (Sproul, 1998b p. 140). The latter is an adjunct
to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS,
1982). The “voluntary” United Nations based 1995 “Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” and the International Standardization
Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) ISO 14001 voluntary environmental
management system (VEMS) protocol provide a baseline and standards “that
are based on an inventory of what exists (in science, technology, experience
and usual practices, etc.) in relation to some observations” (Benezech
et al., 2001 p. 1396). It can be argued that the “Code
of Conduct…” may be considered to be emerging international
customary law (see Belsky, 1990; Belsky, 1985). To facilitate
global large marine ecosystem (LME) acceptance and implementation of “sustainable
fisheries (and aquaculture) principles,” they ought to be framed
within a broad purview of environmental management system standards
(Sproul, 1998b p. 140).
LEGITIMACY
FOR FOSTERING AN ISO 14000 SERIES PROTOCOL IN
THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS FOR USE WITHIN INTERNATIONAL LARGE MARINE
ECOSYSTEMS (LMEs)
The movement from concept to an applied standard should stand the test
of legitimacy. In the U.S., the presence of legitimacy is discussed
by James L. Connaughton who is the present chairman of the U.S. Council
on Environmental Quality (a bureau that coordinates federal environmental
efforts in the development of environmental policies and initiatives). Connaughton
(2002a p. 2) mentions the “U.S. government has been an ardent supporter
and believer in the international standards process, and specifically,
the ISO 14000 family of environmental standards.” He emphasizes
the “ISO 14000 series of standards … provides recognizable,
transparent, and flexible models and tools for managing environmental
issues. These international standards have been developed by consensus
of a world-wide collection of experts, and allows us to operate effectively
without having individual government entities create their own protocols
and guidelines.” Further, he reiterated that U.S. federal
agencies must use existing international standards instead of creating
their own requirements or standards because the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act, (passed in March of 1996; Public Law 104-113) mandates
that as policy (Connaughton 2002a; U.S. Congress, 1996 a&b).
Zwight (2004, p. 35) highlights that in the United States The National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act “requires that federal
agencies adopt, where possible, technical standards developed by consensus
organizations. The ISO 14000 series of environmental standards
were developed through the consensus processes of the International Organization
for Standardization and were adopted by the American National Standards
Institute.” “Environmental management systems’ can
provide a structure for effective adaptive management of natural resources
and continual improvement of environmental performance. Environmental
management systems’ could help new science and information to be
quickly integrated into the analytical base to be used not only to account
for broad management effects and natural events at the plan level but
also to provide a refreshed and current base of information” to
be used in connection with fishery planning where an “environmental
management system approach has been endorsed by the White House Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ)” (Zwight, 2004 p. 33).
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, which
passed on March 7, 1996 (Public Law 104-113), codified requiring federal
agencies to adopt and use standards developed by voluntary consensus
standards bodies and to work closely with those organizations to ensure
that the developed standards are consistent with agency needs and with
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (House Report No.
104-390 Legislative History; Public Law 104-113 Section 12: Standards
Conformity). OMB Circular A-119 was revised on February 10, 1998
to coincide with Public Law 104-113 of March 7, 1996. OMB Circular
A-119 policy in Section 6 states “[A]ll federal agencies (or other
establishment of the Federal Government) must use voluntary consensus
standards in lieu of government unique standards in their government
and regulatory activities except where inconsistent with law or otherwise
impractical.” Section 6(e) mentions “when properly
conducted, standards development increase productivity and efficiency
in government and industry (e.g. Bodal, 2003), expand opportunities for
international trade, conserve resources, improve health and safety, and
protect the environment.” (U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
1998, see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html, online
available May 14, 2005). von Zharen (1995 p. 12) highlights “there
is today a seemingly unlimited potential for noncompliance with marine
and coastal resources environmental regimes because these regimes are
a patchwork of sometimes overlapping and contradictory law.”
Early experience in the U.S. with voluntary environmental management
systems (VEMS) was legally required for federal agencies via Presidential
Executive Order 13148 of April, 2000 (Presidential Documents, 2000). The
Order included tacit reference to ISO 14001 (see: Environmental Protection
Agency 1996, – Code of Environmental Management Principles Federal
Register Vol. No. 61 (201) at p. 54062, October 16, 1996)… “or
use another alternative environmental management system, e.g. ISO 14001.” Pilot
initiatives posited through or by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) indicated that this bureau encouraged use of VEMS, and ISO 14001
as “the predominant model, as the foundation tool for best management
practice efforts” when organizations seek enhanced environmental
performance through voluntary mechanisms (Connaughton, 2002a p. 3).
“The administration is committed to greening the government (Executive
Order 13148 of April 21, 2000) and ensuring that Federal agencies do
seek to minimize harm to the nation’s natural resources. The
Clean Marina program is an existing voluntary partnership between the
Federal government, states, and private marinas that promote state certification
of marinas that practice good environmental stewardship in areas such
as pollution prevention and waste management;” it also may be applicable
in recreational (for-hire; party/charter) fisheries. Executive
Order 13148 of April 21, 2000 (Greening the Government Through Leadership
in Environmental Management) has as one of its goals (Part 2, Section
201) the development and implementation of environmental management systems. Part
4 Sec. 401 of said Order requires that “each agency shall conduct
an agency-level environmental management system self assessment based
on the Code of Environmental Management Principles for Federal Agencies
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (61 Federal
Register 54062, October 16, 1996) and/or another appropriate environmental
management system framework.” The Code of Environmental Management
Principles by the EPA (Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 201 pp. 54061-54066,
October 16, 1996) specifically makes reference to ISO 14001 voluntary
environmental management system (VEMS) as another alternative environmental
management system that is endorsed to be used1,2,3,4,5 (see
also Figure 5).
Connaughton (2002a p. 4) posits the viewpoint that use of the ISO 14000
family of standards including the “environmental performance evaluation
guidance documents will be very helpful in our effort to develop relevant
environmental indicators and relevant metrics.” Because “ relevant” marine
environmental indicators (metrics) exist within the modular large marine
ecosystem (LME) framework used throughout the globe and, since autumn
2004 the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas
Programme is officially “linked with Large Marine Ecosystems assessment
and management,” use of an ISO 14001 VEMS is compatible as part
of this new partnership (see e.g. Connaughton 2002a; UNEP, 2004; Laffoley
et al., 2004; Sherman, 2005).
Under Presidential Executive Order 13366 of December 17, 2004 – Committee
on Ocean Policy – functions of the committee provides for “voluntary
regional approaches with respect to ocean-related matters (including
natural resources) (sec 4(d)(ii), perhaps this could include an ISO 14001
VEMS “voted” for by a regional fishery management council
for select fishery management plans seeking an ecosystem-oriented approach
to sustainability. Another committee function is the “use
of science in establishment of policy on ocean-related matters” (sec
4(d)(iii)) (Presidential Documents, 2004a; see also Presidential Documents,
2004b). The large marine ecosystem (LME) paradigm is a science-based
approach to the assessment and management of living resources that considers
the human dimension in meeting policy challenges in an adaptive manner
(see: e.g. Hennessey and Sutinen, 2005).
“The United States will promote, within the United Nations Environment
Program’s regional seas programs and by international fisheries
bodies, the use of the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept as a tool
for enabling ecosystem-based management to provide a collaborative approach
to management of resources within ecologically bounded transnational
areas. This will be done in an international context and consistent
with customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.” (U.S. Ocean Action Plan, December
17, 2004 see: http://www.whitehouse.gov; CEQ, 2004; see also Belsky,
1985). “Our policies will encourage innovation and employ
economic incentives over mandates where possible.” And, “the
Administration will continue to work towards an ecosystem-based approach
in making decisions related to water, land, and resource management…” An
immediate and long-term action highlight is to “work with regional
fisheries councils to promote greater use of a market-based system for
fisheries management.” The Ocean Action Plan facilitates the establishment
of a “new interagency working group on ocean resources management” whose
functions would include identification of “opportunities for improvements
in the application of science for ecosystem-based management of ocean
resources.”
In the United States, the administration is “encouraging market-based
incentives to adjust harvest capacity in a fishery can help end the race
for fish, improve product quality, enhance safety at sea, and make fishing
operations more efficient, ultimately improving the livelihood of those
who depend on them” (CEQ 2004). It is also noteworthy that
the Coastal Zone Management Act system is a “voluntary” program
between the federal government and the states with many incentives for
participation offered by the federal government.
Stated objectively “both in concept and practice, the environmental
management system approach meshes well with the Administration’s
management objectives. It provides the platform for meeting federal
stewardship goals as well as the management tools to measure and improve
performance against these goals” (Connaughton, 2002a p. 4). Connaughton
(2004 p. 4) points out by reference “state and local governments
in the U.S. also are very interested in environmental management system,
with many both incorporating support of the use of an environmental management
system by the regulated community, and they themselves implementing an
environmental management system” (see for Northeast U.S. examples:
Swift, 2002 and Connecticut, 1999).
In Massachusetts under Executive Order 438 of July 23rd 2002 “state
sustainability program” the State Sustainability Coordinating
Council “shall collect, maintain, evaluate and disseminate best
environmental practices being undertaken by individual state agencies
to promote sustainable environmental practices and procedures throughout
all state agencies” (Swift 2002). For agencies with “multiple
environmental impacts an environmental management system will be the
most appropriate method of establishing agency-wide procedures to meet
the goals of this order.” This program cross referenced
federal departmental environmental management system policies (letters,
memorandums) including ISO 14000 protocols (see http://www.mass.gov/envir/) Therefore,
with the state’s Director of Marine Fisheries, a voting member
of the New England Fishery Management Council, a selection of these “agency” sustainable
environmental practices can be introduced into “federally consistent” fisheries
policies as required in the voluntary programmatic application of the
Coastal Zone Management Act 1972 as amended, which Massachusetts is
a long-time participant. For an opposing view to New England
Fishery Management Council policy, see Sanchirico and Hanna, (2004).
As a bureau within the executive branch, specifically the “White
House”, the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) through its
chairman notes “the Bush Administration is actively promoting and
supporting the implementation of environmental management system(s) … CEQ
has expertise on the ISO 14000 series as well as understanding the international
standardization process. The CEQ sees the relationship between
the purpose of the tools, and the needs and goals of the government in
relation to environmental issues. The CEQ has the opportunity to
bring to light the connections between performance goals and necessary
management tools, and illustrate the value of the standards to help meet
the goals” (Connaughton, 2002a p. 5).
Blodgett (2000) writes that alternatives to U.S. command and control
approaches to environmental protection has heightened in recent years. One
new approach to environmental protection that fosters sustainability
are value-based principles drawn from, inter alia, voluntary environmental
management systems (VEMS). These may be categorized with “good
management practices,” the precautionary principle (approach) and
ecosystem management (Blodgett, 2000 p. 5). “The management
process approach proposes to affect decisions by promoting and reinforcing
environmentally oriented values” and that good management practices “are
often seen as voluntary alternatives to regulatory mandates.” (Blodgett,
2000 p. 5).
Voluntary environmental management system (VEMS) standards such as the
ISO 14000 series may provide a mechanism for regulatory process and application
transparency in the United States where emerging marine affairs oriented
fisheries issues such as approval of transgenic fish for aquaculture
production (see Logar and Pollock, 2005) run into drawbacks related to
disclosure prohibitions contained in the Trade Secrets Act(s) of 2004. In
July of 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jointly with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designed a voluntary, fee-for-service
seafood inspection program that was based on hazard analysis critical
control points (HACCP) concepts – thus voluntary programs are not
new to the fisheries industry (Billy, 1994; Brown and Sylvia, 1994). Another
voluntary public/private approach, this time related to Atlantic Salmon
conservation, involved Champion International Corporation, Georgia-Pacific
and another firm initiating the Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement
Project in “downeast” Maine (Heissenbuttel, 1996).
Begley (1996b p. 54) reports that outside the United States “regulatory
systems are less stringent, less prescriptive, and less adversarial making
ISO 14000 a more meaningful tool for organizations to use to demonstrate
commitment to good performance.” Begley (1996b p. 54) highlights
that the “abundant record keeping required by ISO 14001 provides
regulators with a paper trail of an organization’s efforts to prevent
and correct problems.” “ISO 14000 establishes internationally
recognized standards that will diminish barriers to trade and make it
easier to do business across borders” (Begley, 1996b p. 51). “Since
the ISO 14000 family of standards is recognized internationally, benefits
in competitive positioning arising from certification may be realized
in foreign as well as domestic markets.” Some studies corroborate
these findings (see: Berthelot et al., 2003 p. 50).
APPLICATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL VEMS STANDARD:
ISO 14001
According to the United
States National Academy of Science – National Research Council (NRC;
1999) the international VEMS standard, ISO 14000, does not establish specific
environmental performance requirements beyond commitment to continual improvement
as well as compliance with applicable legislation and regulations. Highlighted
aspects of changing the environmental protection paradigm can be seen “from
one focused solely on complying with federal regulations to one for which compliance
is achieved as part of a more proactive performance-based system” (NRC,
1999 p. 3). The NRC (1999 p. 4) highlighted that the characteristics
of VEMS’s and ISO 14001 “to be flexible, baseline approach that
can be adapted to organizations of all sizes and types, and to a variety of
cultures, processes and businesses.” For the U.S., a panel of experts
of the National Academy of Sciences/NRC could be convened to research and articulate
marine fisheries-oriented VEMS (see: NRC, 1999; National Academy of Public
Administration, 2001).
“The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) has also
dealt with environmental management but on a broader and more global
scale. To reiterate the International Organization for Standardization,
commonly referred to as ISO, is an international, non-governmental federation
of “standards bodies” from one hundred and twenty participating
nations. The ISO addresses environmental management on a broader
and more global scale through its voluntary environmental management
system (VEMS) standard, ISO 14001 and the ISO 14000 series in general. The
standards represent unprecedented market-place and scientifically-based
consensus initiatives (von Zharen 1998 p. 83). The ISO 14000 series
provides specific requirements and principles for environmental management
with the goal of internalizing environmental standards into either public
and/or private sector actions locally, regionally or globally. “The
focus of ISO 14001 is on a management ecosystem” (von Zharen 1998
p. 83). Present applications of a voluntary environmental management
system (VEMS) strategy may be found in a plethora of businesses, including
segments of the maritime industry. “The ISO 14001 standard
is by design generic and thus could apply to all components of maritime
activities, including fisheries management and management of marine ecosystems” (von
Zharen, 1999 p. 18). The ISO 14001 requires a multifaceted, interdisciplinary
look at all aspects of a business or organization’s activities,
products, or services at all levels in all areas and an analysis of how
these interact potentially in an unsustainable detrimental manner with
the physical environment. In other words, ISO 14001 focuses on
both parts and the whole.
“The impetus for the ISO 14000 series can be traced to the global
environmental initiative, the Earth Summit in 1992” (von Zharen,
1999 p. 11). The June 1992 Earth Summit Conference in Rio De Janeiro
had as one focus worldwide corporate environmental management (see e.g.
Shrivastava, 1995 p. 937). A number of voluntary environmental
management systems (VEMSs) were at that time in various stages of development. Major
ones included the British Standard, BS 7750, and the European Eco-Management
and Audit Scheme, EMAS (Oluoch-Wauna, 2001). Individual industries
had developed their own specialized VEMS especially the chemical manufacturers. What
was needed, however, was a unified and all encompassing generic VEMS
that could embody all industry, organizations (including government and
non-governmental entities), and businesses, large, medium, and small
that could also pertain to the marine environment (see e.g. Bodal, 2003;
Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003). Out of this concern in part,
emerged the ISO 14000 international voluntary environmental management
system series. The ISO 14000 series provides specific requirements
and principles for environmental management. The standards are “systems” standards,
neither domestic nor intentional legal standards (von Zharen 1999 p.
12). They are intended to harmonize standards across industry organizations
primarily in a voluntary manner. The public or private organization
(entity) identifies what environmental impacts are acceptable within
the prevailing legal regulatory framework, both international (treaties,
memorandums of understanding (MOU)) and domestic (in the U.S. “Public
Law” and executive orders). The ISO 14000 series may apply
to all types of organizations and is structured to accommodate diverse
geographical, cultural, and social conditions. Unlike traditional
command and control piecemeal regulatory approaches to environmental
protection, the ISO 14000 series may simultaneously address all affected
media and resources, including living marine species (von Zharen 1999
p. 12).
Moreover, the standards may be grouped as either highlighting evaluation
of an organization’s management system and activities or focusing
on assessment of its products (for example, seafood processing) and/or
services (wild capture fishing, aquaculture, “deep-sea recreational,
for-hire fishing trips,” etc). It is a “management” standard,
not a command and control legal standard. Other types of documents
in the series include tools and guidelines (Figure 2). The ISO
14000 series defines management processes to be followed to minimize
the impact an organization (entity) will have on the environment. It
is up to the organization to identify what environmental impacts are
acceptable within the established regulatory legal framework to which
it falls. “Effective (voluntary) environmental management system’s
are based on a realistic view of how organization’s work. This
includes understanding that it is the people with their handle on the
controls who determine whether or not an organization complies with legal
requirements” (Giles, 2004 p. 35). The ISO 14001 may be used
to augment and proactively precede the traditional piece-meal regulatory
approach to stewarding ocean resources (von Zharen, 1998; see also von
Zharen, 1995). There are several core principles of an ISO 14001
VEMS (see Figure 14). As a part of these core principles,
there is included a framework for setting and reviewing environmental
objectives and targets that are communicated to all employees (crew)
and that remains available in a transparent diaphanous way to stakeholders6,7,
(however they identify themselves; see: for example, Mitchell et al.,
1997).
An effective ISO 14001 voluntary environmental management system (VEMS)
can be built on stewardship framework principles such as those of the
science-based large marine ecosystem (LME) approach (see e.g. Sherman
and Duda, 1999a&b; Duda and Sherman, 2005; Sherman, 2005; Alexander,
1993; Morgan, 1994; Morgan, 1987). The ISO 14000 series incorporates
management precepts that are imperative in attaining an ecosystem oriented-approach
to sustainability of the marine environment: it provides commitment to
environmental performance; a review of environmental impacts; the formulation
of objectives and targets; and continual improvement to meeting the environmental
policy vision (or mission statement), that is the baseline for prospective
(third party) certification (von Zharen 1999 p. 13). The ISO 14000
specialization’s encompass a wide variety of aspects including
environmental auditing, eco-labeling, self and third party certification,
and life-cycle analysis (see Figure 15).
Sproul (1998b p. 141) states the fishing industry is quite suited to
implement various aspects of an international voluntary environmental
management system (VEMS); whether at the vessel, firm or fishery-wide
level. Indeed the Australian government has fostered pilot projects
related to fisheries voluntary environmental management systems (see:
Australian Government, 2005 and 2004a&b). Typically, the ISO
14000 approach focuses on an individual firm, organization, or entity
developing an appropriate VEMS with prospective guidance from “registered” environmental
management systems host country base auditors if the entity chooses. The
VEMS could be specific to a firm/industry/fishery and follow appropriate
established generic ISO guidelines (see: Figure 2; Table 2) that would
provide the baseline for its environmental policy development and implementation. Prior
to ISO certification (which is not obligatory) however, the system and
its implementation procedures could undergo an environmental audit by
an independent third party for transparent certification. Periodic
internal performance evaluations could occur as a part of environmental
audits which could be communicated to interested stakeholders including
regulators (see Figure 2, Figure 16). Independence between monitoring
and enforcement reviews ensures on-going regulatory and prospective certification
compliance while encouraging adaptive management (see Figure 17) improvement
practices (see e.g., NRC, 2004a&b) regarding the VEMS and the firm’s
actual fishery impact on the ecosystem (Sproul, 1998b p. 143).
Certification of a country’s products at the macro level or of
an organization’s produce at the micro level (see Stehr Group 2005)
via locally provided human resource teams of independent VEMS-auditors
could be articulated in a consistent way to both domestic and international
clientele by way of an international “eco-label” protocol
that is provided by adherence to ISO 14020 (see also: Gudmundsson and
Wessels, 2000; LeBlanc, 2003; Wessels, 2002). (This is analogous
to the dolphin-safe tuna moniker in the U.S. consumer market that is
regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, see also: NOAA, 2000
and 2002; NMFS-Office of Protected Resources, 2005a, b, c, d). Thus,
cross-boundary standardization of the eco-label procedure is imperative
to not only optimize defensible VEMS documentation, but to avoid non-tariff
trade barriers that could materialize in the discord associated with
a myriad of potential certification schemes (Sproul, 1998b p. 143; see
also Teisl et al., 2002; Joseph, 1994). The ISO “eco-label” protocol
simply confirms that the product is what it says it is by analogy, “dolphin
safe” (see Sutton 1998 p. 132). Also certified is the documentation
practice describing the process by which the product came about. If
the process were specifically applied to fisheries, and FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries criteria8 were employed, the auditor
process could certify and label fisheries as sustainable and an institutionally
ecological practice (Sproul, 1998b p. 143).
Sustainable fishery certification will likely incorporate into every
day consumer choice (Allison, 2001). The process of learning how
to minimize marine environmental ecosystem impacts while financing socially
constructive organization is of paramount importance. Through market
forces rather than subsidization, a fundamental shift in thinking may
take place. The economy will begin to incorporate ways for people
to respond in the market place to the realization that constructive and
sustainable processes are at least as important as their end-product. Linking
the fishery product with its process (e.g. gear effects minimization
on habitat, minimal incidental/regulatory bycatch and discards as well
as highgrading, and an end to unresponsible overfishing) is key, the
ISO 14000 series VEMS accomplishes this task (Gable, 2003; Sproul, 1998b).
The time is upon the fishing industry as a whole and its milieu of consumer
oriented-stakeholders, resource managers, academics, and policy makers,
to formulate a legacy for marine ecosystem sustainable development. Within
their grasp is the opportunity to initiate and institutionalize free-market,
democratic instruments of choice, such as the ISO 14001 VEMS provides
(Sproul, 1998b p. 145) and as part of a large marine ecosystem (LME)
socio-economic portfolio approach (Edwards et al., 2005; Edwards, 2005). Current
and future generations could utilize and build upon it to foster large
marine ecosystem (LME) resource responsibility and guardianship. With
determination, an ISO 14001 VEMS program could also integrate mechanisms
furthering international and domestic human development and healthy sustainable
ecosystems.
The ISO 14000 family of international standards on environmental management
supports the internationally agreed to objective of “sustainable
development” (e.g. Kates et al., 2005) with a wide-ranging portfolio
of standardized methods that provides organizations with best available
scientifically valid data (see NRC, 2004a) on the environmental effects
of economic activity. This is a precursor to the technical basis for
environmental (fishery) regulations. The ISO 14000 series, first
printed in September 1996, meets the needs and concerns of those interested
in the environmental management of all types of organizations. Specifically
the ISO 14000 family of standards comprises a systematic approach of
documents related to voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS;
i.e., ISO 14001 and ISO 14004) and procedures and documents related to
environmental management tools, such as environmental management system
audits and environmental performance evaluations.
The goal of VEMS adoption is to help all types of organizations (entities)
ensure that their operations comply with environmental laws and that
major environmental risks, liabilities, and impacts are properly identified,
minimized, and managed (Darnall, et al., 2000 p. 1). They are also
meant to be transparent to stakeholders and the interested public. Since
the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD; ending
in September 2002) incorporated the concept of ecosystem-based management
system for a sustainable future the ecosystem effects of fishing needs
better scientific scrutiny (Barange, 2003). Dernbach and Feldman
(2003 p. 88) state that with regard to the Johannesburg Summit in September
2002, “the concept of sustainable development changed by incorporating
environmental protection, and even restoration into the definition of
development." (see also Kates, et al., 2005).
Barange (2003 p. 194) claims that the scientific community needs “to
quantify anthropogenically driven changes and their consequences in terms
of ecosystem functioning, turnover rates, matter fluxes and so on, and
to determine whether they are reversible, and if so over what time scales.” We
need to establish data bases of estimated species abundance and resource
management approaches … such an inventory does not yet exist (Barange,
2003 p. 195). It is suggested here that an industry based “voluntary” ISO
14000 series environmental management system could provide a part of
that needed data base (see also Zeller et al., 2005). Darnall et.
al., (2000 pp. 1 & 2) writes that a VEMS supplies the structural
framework to minimize an organizations environmental footprint (see Figure 4). Once an organization implements its VEMS, theoretically, it
will not only be in conformance with all (governmental) environmental
regulations, but it may also surpass the regulatory standards for many
environmentally regulated activities. In addition, the collected fishery
biomass data could be studied in aggregate by the scientific community
to ascertain ecosystem functioning. Further, the entity may identify
opportunities for reducing non-regulated environmental impacts of its
activities too. Organizations that adopt VEMS’s and are able
to reduce their environmental impacts beyond regulatory standards may
also lessen their required environmental reporting burdens and their
associated costs (Darnall et al., 2000 p. 2).
In the marine fisheries realm, concerning the ecosystem effects of fishing,
between 18 and 39.5 million metric tons of mostly dead fish are discarded
annually by commercial fisheries which may severely handicap the energy
flow in large marine ecosystems (Barange, 2003 p. 194; see Figure 18). “From
an ecological perspective, the ecosystem approach recognizes, and aims
to remedy the unwanted impacts of fishing on non-target species, habitats
and ecological interactions” (Jennings, 2004 p. 280). Shrivastava
(1995 p. 937) suggests “because much economic activity occurs within
corporations (firms), government efforts need to be supplemented with new
voluntary efforts [emphasis added] by corporations (firms) in order
to address the industrial induced ecological problems.” “Corporations
(firms) are the intermediaries that convert natural resources into usable
products (commodities; see Figure 7). Natural resource-based industries
(fisheries) can play a very constructive role in preserving ecosystems
through conservation and resource-renewal strategies.” (Shrivastava,
1995 p. 940). This is analogous to humans as an integral part of the
ecosystem – not separate from it (Sherman, 2005).
The ISO 14001 context as described by Darnall (2001, p. 2) identifies
ISO 14001-certified VEMSs as standards for environmental management.
While many organizations or companies for years have utilized VEMSs,
ISO 14001 is the first successful attempt to create an international
VEMS standard that is certified by an external auditor. And, it
can be utilized for either or both domestic or international purposes – important
aspects for large marine ecosystem (LME) fisheries management.
Pojasek (2002 p. 83) affirms that the “ISO 14000 environmental
management standard is currently the most widely used VEMS around the
world.” Stapleton, et al. (2001 p. 1), also makes the claim that
the “ISO 14001 published in November 1996, is the most widely accepted
international standard for VEMS.” Thornton (2000 p. 89) articulates
the story that by “late 1999, it was announced that suppliers to
the automobile industry (in the U.S.) would be required to certify the
implementation of (voluntary) environmental management systems (VEMS’s)
in their operations by the end of 2002. The VEMS’s must be
in conformance with ISO 14001.” Thus, a VEMS standard is
born. “Automakers can have a very significant and direct
effect on their suppliers’ behavior with regard to quality, safety,
and environmental performance.” (Thornton, 2000 p. 92).
Thornton (2000 p. 93) goes on to theorize that … ISO 14001 certification “assures
all parties that the company is working diligently to improve environmental
performance, and is willing to go on record with their objective and
results.” As a part of the precautionary approach (e.g. Dorman,
2005) “ISO 14001 certification can be particularly important in
developing countries, where many sensitive environmental issues may arise” (Thornton,
2000 p. 93). Thornton (2000 p. 93) assures that it is the “customer’s
reaction that will determine the success of ISO 14001 certification” (the
Registrar Accreditation Board accredits ISO 14001 registrars in the United
States).
Despite its apparent focus on traditional business operations, ISO 14001
also has gained the attention of public policy makers because of its
potential and apparent relevance to environmental protection and sustainability
(Darnall, 2001 p. 3). Beginning in the late 1990s, state and federal
environmental regulators have investigated the use of VEMSs and their
role in public policy (see for example, Swift, 2002; State of Connecticut,
1999). One outgrowth of this interest was the formation of the
Multistate Working Group on Environmental Management Systems (MSWG) while
in concert with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated
ten state-level pilot programs to encourage and facilitate VEMS adoption
in approximately 60 U.S. based facilities (Darnall, 2001, p. 3). The
MSWG and EPA initiated the pilot program to determine the potential VEMSs
have for future regulation in any industry. According to Darnall
(2001 p. 3) approximately three-quarters of the pilot project facilities
were also seeking ISO 14001 (third party) certification (see also NRC,
1999).
Because of the pilot programs, regulators interest in VEMSs has gained
momentum and beginning in 2000, U.S. EPA created “Performance Track” to
recognize organizations that consistently meet their obligatory regulatory
legal requirements and implement high-quality voluntary environmental
management systems based on the ISO 14001 framework (Darnall, 2001 p.
3). Regulators interest in VEMSs is rooted in the belief that organizations
which adopt VEMSs may meet or exceed their regulatory commitments (e.g.
Hart, 1995), thus making the environmental regulatory system less burdensome
and restrictive to their operations. Darnall (2001 p. 3) postulates
that while scientific evidence on this issue is not yet tenable, if VEMSs
demonstrate increases in environmental performance then important governmental-orientated
questions arise about whether U.S. executive branch agencies should use
ISO 14001 as a tool for them to achieve goals of greater environmental
protection. (see, for example Hart, 1995 p. 1000).
The ISO 14001 VEMS family places its focus on the “organization,” not
the “facility” (Ritzert, 2000 p. 70). “It is
not a site management system defined by physical boundaries, but rather
a management system for the activities, products, and services of the
organization – including people, resources, physical plant or platform,
materials, and all the other things that make up the firm, enterprise,
or institution” (Ritzert, 2000 p. 70; see Figure 19; Table 3).
The ISO 14000 environmental standards specify the structure of information
technology, in the form of a VEMS, that an organization must have in
place if it seeks to obtain certification of the VEMS according to ISO
guidelines. The ISO 14000 standards describe the basic elements
of an effective VEMS (Montabon et al., 2000, p. 5; see Figure 14, Figure 15). For
the proactive organization the assumption is that better environmental
management will indirectly lead to better environmental performance (Montabon
et al., 2000, p. 5).
Montabon et al., (2000 p. 6) divided the “intent” of the
ISO 14000 into two general categories. For organizational evaluation,
the VEMS, auditing, and performance evaluation standards will be used. The
VEMS standards provide the framework for the management system. Third-party
auditing and performance evaluations are seen as management tools in
the successful implementation of a VEMS. For product/services and
process evaluation, labeling, life cycle assessment, and environmental
attributes in, for example, seafood/fishery aquacultural product standards
would be emphasized.
Thus, in review, according to information available from the U.S.
EPA (see: http://www.epa.gov/ online
available March 19, 2005) an environmental management system is a framework
that helps an organization achieve its environmental goals through
consistent re-analysis of its operations (so-called “double loop
analysis”). The
assumption is that this increased analysis will over time improve the
environmental performance of the organization and strive for a healthy
sustainable ecosystem. The voluntary environmental management system
itself does not require a level of environmental performance that must
be achieved; each organization’s VEMS is tailored to the organization’s
industry services, regulations and goals. A VEMS encourages an organization
to continuously improve its environmental performance in a synoptic manner,
by following a repeating cycle (see Figures 2, 3, 4,
and especially 6).
According to Oluoch-Wauna (2001, p. 247) “a successful implementation
of an environmental management system and audit also allows an organization
to minimize its environmental liabilities and risks.” Further,
proof of good environmental management could lead to easy attainment
of environmental incident insurance coverage at low premiums due to reduced
risks. Presently, the utilization of a VEMS and certification or
audit as an instrument of environmental protection is in an adaptive
management experimental phase. There is as yet no systematic approach
to its use, or criteria for analyzing its effectiveness (Oluoch-Wauna,
2001, p. 248). “In due course, environmental auditing will
become the norm, part of best environmental practice of firms” (Goodall,
1995, p. 34). To facilitate global acceptance and implementation
of sustainable fisheries (and aquaculture) LME-oriented principles can
be framed within a broad arena of voluntary environmental management
systems (VEMS) standards that are akin to indicators contained in the
socio-economic module.
Therefore, establishment and implementation of an organization’s
VEMS is central in ascertaining its environmental policy, objectives,
and targets, providing a benchmark frame of reference for continuous
adjustment and improvement of marine-related environmental performance
(Gable, 2003). Tools for environmental management exist to assist
the organization in fostering and promoting its environmental policy,
objectives, and targets; see Table 2. The ISO 14000 compliance
standards are practical tools for the manager (boat captain, fishery
permit holder, regulator, etc.) who isn’t satisfied with compliance
to legislation and command and control directives, they’re for
the proactive entity providing a strategic approach to conducting, implementing,
and evaluating environment-related measures that can bring a sustainable
return on investment (Gable, 2003, p. 439). More information on
ISO 14000 VEMS usage in the private sector can be found in Coglianese
and Nash (2002, 2001). Thus, adoption of ISO 14000 compliance standards
could be contained and subsumed into a sustainable “precautionary
approach” paradigm. One example is the market-oriented voluntary
bycatch reduction program that has effectively reduced bycatch rates
in Northeast Pacific trawl fisheries; it is known as the Sea State Program
(see: www.groundfishforum.org; see Appendix 1).
ISO RELEASES ISO 14001 AND ISO 14004 REVISION
2004
The ISO 14001:2004 & ISO14004:2004 revisions were released for
publication on November 15, 2004 providing an improvement from the
original September 1996 version, with more ease of understanding, clearer
requirement intent, an emphasis on overall regulatory compliance, and
generalized compatibility with its older updated sibling ISO 9000:2000.
The ISO 14001:2004 revision changes includes clarification of terminology,
better alignment with ISO 9000:2000, and more emphasis on certain requirements
together with the folding in of additional conditions (e.g. Dodds,
2003). Realignment with ISO 9000:2000 allows entities that are
interested in combining a voluntary environmental management system
(VEMS) and quality management system (QMS), an ease of transition to
the revision. This perhaps is now better suited for a seafood processor
organization as well as for offshore aquaculture development (Logar
and Pollack, 2005; Dalton, 2005; Naughten, 2005; Schmid, 2005; Hoagland
et al., 2003). The combining of the management systems can be
a natural progression for establishments with joint organization resources.
The ISO 14001:2004 revision includes clarifications that range from
simple terminology adjustments, to a complete rewrite of paragraphs,
as well as the addition of new requirements. The clarifications
and terminology changes theoretically will enhance the understanding
of the requirements for the organization. Overall, the updates
will likely add clarity to the voluntary environmental management system
requirements in the first “new and improved” version since
its inception in September 1996 (see Table 4).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The precautionary-oriented ISO 14001 VEMS standard can be the catalyst
for fusing disparate goals into a global vision of marine environmental
sustainability – which is the focus of a large marine ecosystem
(LME) approach to living marine resources (see e.g. Sherman and Duda,
1999a&b; Duda and Sherman, 2002). Ammenberg and Hjelm (2002
p. 188) in their study uncovered that many small or micro enterprises
are in need of systematic environmental efforts as some entities did
not take into consideration environmental issues at all. This is
likely the situation for many marine fisheries related efforts as well. Dietz
et al., (2003 p. 1909) suggests that in the struggle to govern the commons
requirements for complex systems (e.g. Green et al., 2005) adaptive governance
may encompass voluntary approaches. These measures and “those
based on information disclosure have only begun to receive careful scientific
attention as supplements to other tools.” They suggest that
to gain success it “appears to depend on the existence of incentives
that benefit leaders in volunteering over laggards and on the simultaneous
use of other strategies, particularly ones that create incentives for
compliance.” This maybe the situation notwithstanding sanctioning
difficulties posing problems under international agreements (Dietz et.
al., 2003 p. 1909). They have also found that relying on “one-level
centralized command and control strategies” to effectuate efficiencies
for governing world resources have also failed (Dietz et. al., 2003 p.
1910; e.g. Table 5). Kollman and Prakash (2002 p. 60) highlight
that local or “domestic factors such as organizational arrangements,
regulatory styles, and market structures significantly influence firms’ incentives
structures“ to taking up “beyond compliance” VEMS codes
such as ISO 14001. “Although showing some promise, rights-based
management has yet to demonstrate its ability to cope with ecosystem-based
management” (Sinclair et al., 2002 p. 262; see also Figure 20). Individual
fishery quota’s or dedicated access privileges “may reduce
overcapitalization and inefficiency in U.S. fisheries, they do not lead
to ecosystem protection and sustainable fisheries” (Rieser, 1997
p. 817). “Ecosystem management is further hindered by the
fact that a (U.S.) regional fishery management council cannot manage
fish populations throughout their range because authority over the entire
marine ecosystem is fragmented between different entities” (Hanna,
1997 p. 228; see also Figure 21).
Hence, adoption of consensus based voluntary environmental management
systems (VEMS) can help facilitate an incremental movement toward ecosystem-oriented
fisheries science policy. Steger (2000 p. 32) suggests that an “ecological
limits-driven” VEMS can contribute to sustainable harvests in the
long term for specific ecosystems. Valdimarsson and Metzner (2005
p. 288) advise that a fisheries oriented firm-based response to perceived
consumer market pressures ought to include compliance and environmental
standards such as ISO 14001. The ISO 14000 series aims at the establishment
of ecological considerations in the decision-making process on the granting
of permits (or “dedicated access privileges”). Fisheries
oriented firms must increasingly secure a permit (license) to operate
directly from civil society, in conjunction with regulators, by illustrating
their commitment to sound environmental policy and performance (e.g.
Neumayer and Perkins, 2004 p. 830). The ISO 14000 series framework
can demonstrate such a commitment. Neumayer and Perkins (2004 p.
836) imply that ISO 14001 could be a complement to public law and regulation. Imperial
and Yandle (2005 p. 499) caution “setting a TAC can be problematic
when decision makers are confronted with scientific uncertainty. The
process can also be distorted if fishers increase catch in an effort
to ‘fish for quota’ in the years leading up to the introduction
of an ITQ system” (re: dedicated access privileges).
This review has attempted to address the hypothesis by Hanna (2002 p.
4) that the “existence of property rights (in fisheries) would
allow the focus to shift toward performance-based regulation, where the
right to fish depends on certification of meeting specified conditions.” Taken
literally, this paper, through a normative review and synthesis of the
best available science literature, finds that “certification” to
ISO 14001 VEMS conditions is able to foster performance towards sustainable
ecosystem-approaches to fisheries. The ISO 14000 voluntary approach provides
entities the flexibility to develop VEMS that are appropriate to their
business characteristics, levels of risk, location and operations (Rondinelli
and Vastag, 2000 p. 501). “While ISO 14001 does not eliminate
the need for government regulation of industry, it should help industries
improve their ability to meet the expectations of regulators” (Raines,
2002 p. 425), this may be especially true for emerging “sector
organizations” in commercial fisheries operations (see e.g. GAO,
2004). Further, it is also possible that insurance companies, and
perhaps the banking industry, maybe more willing to accept certification
to ISO 14001 VEMS as evidence of reduced environmental risk-taking by
entities (e.g. Raines, 2002 p. 421) and thus offer special rates (Kollman
and Prakash, 2002 p. 48). With regards to environmental management
system implementation, Fryxell et al., (2004 p. 243) hypothesize that
the “effectiveness of major environmental management system components
will be influenced by motivations for certification.” Their
hypothesis was generally supported – “the strongest motivations
were to ensure regulatory compliance, enhance the organization’s
reputation and improve environmental performance, respectively” (Fryxell,
et. al., 2004 p. 247). Lastly, Delmas (2002 p. 99) proffers that
the “government can also promote the adoption of ISO 14001 VEMS
by threatening to issue a mandatory environmental management standard
(that may be more stringent than ISO 14001) if firms are not voluntarily
adopting ISO 14001 in its present form.”
As stated in the introduction, Gober9 (2000 p. 8) points
out “modern synthesis is organized around ideas, concepts and theories. It
emphasizes discovering strategic connections…,” it may involve
linking already discovered ideas in innovative ways, in grappling with
large and complicated human and natural systems, and in looking for analogies
in seemingly unconnected fields.” Thus, it is proposed here
that the application of voluntary environmental management systems (VEMS)
can serve as an integrated useful tool that can strengthen and improve
large marine ecosystem environmental quality and sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding
for this study provided through a U.S. National Academy of Sciences National
Research Council Research Associateship Award (No. 0497420-marine science
and fisheries) performed at the NOAA/NMFS Narragansett, Rhode Island
Lab under the program on “marine ecosystem assessment and management.” Thanks
to Kenneth Sherman, Director, NMFS Narragansett Lab and Chief, NMFS Office
of Marine Ecosystems Studies for comments and discussions on earlier
versions of the manuscript, as well as Steven F. Edwards of the NMFS
Narragansett Lab, Phil Logan, Chief, Social Sciences Branch (NMFS, Woods
Hole, MA), Professor Tim Hennessey of the University of Rhode Island,
Kingston and other anonymous reviewers. I also thank Professor
W.M. von Zharen of Texas A&M in Galveston for discussions on VEMS
ISO 14000 last winter. The Social Sciences Branch of the NMFS-NEFSC covered
publication costs for binding and distribution for the NEFSC “technical
memorandum” series.
ENDNOTES
- Moreover,
in a memorandum letter dated November 19, 2003, concerning the “establishment
of environmental management systems,” the then Assistant Attorney
General for Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice recommended
that each Federal Bureau establish a voluntary environmental management
system that reflects ISO 14001 or similar standards. He also
wrote that agencies ought to consider “procedures
and processes necessary to enable organizations to perform their functions
consistent with regulatory requirements, environmental policies, and agency
mission.”
- The Commanding Lieutenant General of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, in a memorandum dated May 19, 2003 (Commander’s
Policy Memorandum #11), stated that the “environmental management
system represents a framework through which an organization identifies
attainable indicators of environmental performance, continuously seeks
to improve its environmental performance in measurable ways, and documents
these improvements.” Further
he went on to write, referring to Executive Order 13148, “while
these voluntary environmental management system requirements are oriented
to federal facilities, they do not preclude the eventual development
of programmatic environmental management systems.” Further,
the Department of Army has directed, the Corps of Engineers environment
management systems will be based on the International Organization
of Standardization framework ISO 14001. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture Secretary in a memorandum dated July 29, 2004 (memo #5600-001),
regarding USDA Environmental Management System Policy, enacted a doctrine that “environmental
management will be an integral part of day-to-day decision-making and
long-term planning across all USDA mission areas and in all USDA missions,
activities, and functions.” The then Secretary of Commerce,
Donald Evans, by and large echoed these same intentions in a memo dated
April 22, 2003.
- Wixted (2003) provided an implementation guide for
U.S. Department of Commerce environmental management systems. The
18 steps in the guide drew upon ISO 14000 standards in describing VEMS
elements, stating it is a widely-accepted international standard for
a continual-improvement-oriented VEMS.
- Wixted (2003) reconfirmed
the intent of Secretary of Commerce Evans’ memorandum
issued on April 22, 2003, that the “success of our mission requires
a commitment to continual improvement in our environmental management
performance. The environmental management system is the tool to
assist us in meeting this commitment.” The VEMS serves as
a tool for improving overall agency and environmental mission performance
(Wixted, 2003 p. 3). The ISO 14001 VEMS approach is specifically
referred to by the guide.
- As a bureau in the Department of Commerce,
NOAA’s mission,
inter alia, is to conserve and wisely manage America’s coastal
and marine resources to ensure sustainable economic opportunities including
the goal of ecosystem-based management. The National Marine Fisheries
Service of NOAA works in partnership with … (8) regional fishery
management councils crafting measures to prevent overfishing, rebuild
stocks, and reduce bycatch among other objectives (Department of Commerce
Ocean and Coastal Activities Report of the Office of Management Budget
(http://ocean.ceq.gov/activities/welcome.html),
online available December 18, 2004.)
- Co-management is featured as
the basis on which to build sustainability strategies in which all
stakeholders participate. Co-management,
synonymous with cooperative management, joint management, and collaborative
management, is defined as a system that enables a sharing of decision-making
power, responsibility, and risk between governments and stakeholders
including, but not limited to, resource users, environmental interests,
experts, and wealth generators. It is a form of power sharing,
that fisheries stewardship programs can integrate (von Zharen, 1998 pp.
85 & 86).
- In order to establish its legitimacy, co-management
regime must be created from a mandate, such as a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) among participating parties. Other core elements are essential
to the success of a co-management VEMS. The first is a strong
supporting institution -- the council, board, or agency charged with
implementation. Another
element is effective engagement of stakeholders in order to "probe
the intricacies of key issues, to define the values and principles
for action, to explore new concepts, to forge alliances, and to create
a legitimacy for the implementation and delivery phases" (von
Zharen, 1998 p. 88).
- The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
has specific articles for implementation of sustainable development
provisions contained in the Code in, for example, both fishing operations
(Art. 8) and fisheries management (Art. 7). According to Garcia
(2000 p. 536) "this
structure is convenient because it is explicitly addressed to the various
types of actors required to implement the Code: the policy and decision-makers;
managers; fishermen; fish processor and traders; fish farmers;" as
well as scientists (fisheries research is found in Article 12). "While
the FAO Code is a voluntary and non-binding instrument, the United
States has consistently supported its usefulness as an internationally
agreed upon statement of principles that should govern the policies of
FAO members in all sectors of the fishing industry" (see: Federal
Register 67 (164), August 23, 2002 at page 54645; and Federal
Register 65 (210), October 30, 2000 at page 64683).
- Patricia Gober
is a former invited NOAA Science Advisory Board member when James Baker
was Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmospheres in the Department of
Commerce. She
mentions in her article that NOAA “recently
recast its mission to encompass environmental stewardship. Its
goals of building sustainable fisheries, recovering protected species,
maintaining healthy coastlines and delivering better forecasts are ripe
for social science input” (Gober 2000 p. 5, referencing the "NOAA
Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2005", published in 1996).
REFERENCES
CITED
Alexander, L.M., 1993. Large
Marine Ecosystems: A New Focus for Marine Resource Management. Marine Policy,
17 (3), pp. 186-198.
Allison, E. H., 2001. Big Laws, Small Catches: Global Ocean
Governance and the Fisheries Crisis. Journal of International
Development, 12 (7), pp. 933-950.
Alverson, D.L., 2004. Searching for Ecosystem Reality – Terms
and Concepts. Bulletin of Marine Science, 74(3) pp. 639-652.
Ammenberg, J., and O. Hjelm, 2002. The Connection between Environmental
Management Systems and Continual Environmental Performance Improvements. Corporate
Environmental Strategy, 9 (2), pp. 183-192.
Australian
Government. 2005. Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Department
of the Environment and Heritage, Online Available May 2, 2005
at http://www.deh.gov.au. 4 pp.
Australian Government. 2004a. New EMS Directions: Fact Sheet.
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Online Available
April 16, 2005 at http://www.affa.gov.au. 1 p.
Australian Government. 2004b. Fisheries and the Environment:
International Issues. Department of Agriculture Fisheries and
Forestry, Online Available December 27, 2004 at http://www.affa.gov.au. 3
pp.
Bache, S.J., 2003. Bycatch Mitigation Tools: Selecting Fisheries,
Setting Limits, and Modifying Gear. Ocean & Coastal Management,
46 (1-2), pp. 103-125.
Barange, M., 2003. Ecosystem Science and the Sustainable Management
of Marine Resources: from Rio to Johannesburg. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 4 (1), pp. 190-196.
Begley, R., 1996a. ISO 14000: A Step Toward Industry Self-Regulation. Environmental
Science & Technology, 30 (7), pp. 298A – 302A.
Begley, R., 1996b. Is ISO 14000 Worth It? The Journal of
Business Strategy, 17 (5), pp. 50 – 55.
Belsky, M.H., 1990. Interrelationships of Law in the Management
of Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Large Marine Ecosystems: Patterns,
Processes, and Yields. K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander and B.D.
Gold (eds.). American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, D.C., pp. 224-233.
Belsky, M.H., 1985. Management of Large Marine Ecosystems: Developing
a New Rule of Customary International Law. San Diego Law Review,
22 (4), pp. 733-763.
Benezech, D, G. Lambert, B. Lanoux, C. Lerch and J. Loos-Baroin,
2001. Completion of Knowledge Codification: An Illustration through
the ISO 9000 Standards Implementation Process. Research Policy,
30 (9), pp. 1395-1407.
Berthelot, S., E. McGraw, M. Coulmont, and J. Morrill., 2003.
ISO 14000: Added Value for Canadian Business? Environmental
Quality Management; 13 (2), pp. 47-57.
Billy, T.J., 1994. Report from the Office of Seafood: An Issues
Update. In: Quality Control & Quality Assurance for Seafood,
Sylvia, G, Shriver, A. L. and Morrissey, M.T. (eds.), Oregon
Sea Grant Publication ORESU-W-93-001, pp. 1-5.
Blackburn, W.R., 2004. Sustainability as a Business Operating
System. Natural Resources & Environment, 19
(2), pp. 27-32.
Blodgett, J.E. 2000. Environmental Protection: New Approaches. Congressional
Research Service Report for Congress, No. RL 30760, Online
Available, May 7, 2005 at http://www.ncseonline.org.
Bodal, B. O, 2003. Incorporating Ecosystem Considerations into
Fisheries Management: Large-scale Industry Perspective. In Responsible
Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson
eds., FAO and CABI Publishing pp. 41-46.
Boling, E.A., 2005. Environmental Management Systems and NEPA:
A Framework for Productive Harmony. Environmental Law Institute
News & Analysis, 35 (1), pp. 10022-10031.
Brown, J.R. and N.D. MacLeod, 1996. Integrating Ecology into
Natural Resource Management Policy. Environmental Management,
20 (3), pp. 289-296.
Brown, L., and G. Sylvia, 1994. Trends in Seafood Quality Assurance.
In: Quality Control & Quality Assurance for Seafood,
Sylvia, G, Shriver, A. L. and Morrissey, M.T. (eds.), Oregon
Sea Grant Publication ORESU-W-93-001, pp. 9-14.
Buck, E. H. 2004. Saltonstall-Kennedy Fishery Funding. Congressional
Research Service Report for Congress, No. RS21799, Online
Available, May 2, 2005 at http://www.ncseonline.org.
6 pp.
Burroughs, R.H., 1996. A Policy Orientation Toward Estuarine
Shores. In: Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments,
and Human Alterations. K.F. Nordstrom, and C.T. Roman (eds.),
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 435-448.
Cho, J.H., J.M. Gates, P. Logan, A. Kitts, and M. Soboil, 2005.
The Economic Values of Atlantic Herring in the Northeast Shelf
Large Marine Ecosystem. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems:
The Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.),
Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 215-228.
Christmann, P., 2000. Effects of “Best Practices” of
Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The Role of Complementary
Assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), pp. 663-680.
Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2002. Policy Options for
Improving Environmental Management in the Private Sector. Environment,
44 (9), pp. 10-23.
Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2001. Bolstering Private-Sector
Environmental Management. Issues in Science and Technology,
17 (3), pp. 69-74.
Connecticut, (State of), 1999. State of Connecticut Public Act
No. 99-226: An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management
Systems. Approved June 29, 1999.
Connaughton, J.L, 2004. Attaining Productive Harmony in Environmental
Policy in the 21st Century. Presentation at Resources
for the Future, Washington, D.C., January, 11pp.
Connaughton, J.L., 2002a. The United States Federal Government
and Its Uptake of the ISO 14000 Series of Environmental Management
Standards. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, Letter
of February 13th, Online Available, May 21, 2005 at www.ofee.gov/ems/ems.htm. 5 pp.
Connaughton, J.L., 2002b. Testimony to the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, September, 4pp.
Connaughton, J.L., 2001. Statement before the United States
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington,
D.C., May 17, 2 pp.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2004. U.S. Ocean Action
Plan. The Bush Administration’s Response to the U.S. Commission
on Policy. December 17th, 2004, 39 pp.
Daily, G. and 15 Others, 2000. The Value of Nature and the Nature
of Value. Science, 289 (5478), pp. 395-396.
Dalton, R., 2005. Bill on Deep-Sea Fish Farms Brings Wave of
Disapproval. Nature, 435 (7045), p.1014.
Darcy, G. H. and G. C. Matlock, 1999. Application of the Precautionary
Approach in the National Standard Guidelines for Conservation
and Management of Fisheries in the United States. ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 56 (6), pp. 853-859.
Darnall, N., 2001. Adopting ISO 140001: Why Some Firms Mandate
Certification while Others Encourage It. Paper for Presentation
at the Twenty-Third Annual Research Conference for the Association
for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Conference: “Public
Policy Analysis and Public Policy: Making the Connection,” November
1-3, Washington Monarch Hotel, Washington, DC. 22 pp.
Darnall, N., D. R. Gallagher, R. N. L. Andrews and D. Amaral,
2000. Environmental Management Systems: Opportunities for Improved
Environmental and Business Strategy? Environmental Quality
Management, 9 (3), pp. 1-9.
Delmas, M.A., 2002. The Diffusion of Environmental Management
Standards in Europe and in the United States: An Institutional
Perspective. Policy Sciences, 35 (1), pp. 91-119.
Dernbach, J., and I. Feldman, 2003. After Johannesburg:
Sustainable Development Begins at Home. Environmental Quality
Management, 12 (3), pp. 87-90.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern, 2003. The Struggle to Govern
the Commons. Science, 302 (5652), pp. 1907-1912.
Di Leva, C.E., 2004. Sustainable Development and The World Bank’s
Millennium Development Goals. Natural Resources & Environment,
19 (2), pp. 13-19.
Dobson, T., S. J. Riley and M. Gaden, 2005. Human Dimensions
of Great Lakes Fishery Management: New Research Thrust of the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Society and Natural Resources,
18 (5), pp. 487-491.
Dodds, O. A. 2003. Revising ISO 14001 and ISO 14004. ISO
Bulletin, June, pp. 20-22.
Dorman, P., 2005. Evolving Knowledge and the Precautionary Principle. Ecological
Economics, 53 (2), pp. 169-176.
Duda, A.M., 2005. Targeting Development Assistance to meet WSSD
Goals for Large Marine Ecosystems and Small Island Developing
States. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48 (1), pp. 1-14.
Duda, A. and K. Sherman, 2005. Applications of Large Marine
Ecosystem Approach Toward World Summit Targets. In: Sustaining
Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension, Hennessey,
T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol.
13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 297-317.
Duda, A. M. and K. Sherman, 2002. A New Imperative for Improving
Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 45 (11-12), pp. 797-833.
Eccleston, C. H., 2003. Integrating NEPA’s Concept of
Adaptive Management with an ISO 14000-Consistent EMS. Environmental
Quality Management, 12 (3), pp. 59-67.
Eccleston, C.H., and Smythe, R. B., 2002. Integrating Environmental
Impact Assessment with Environmental Management Systems. Environmental
Quality Management, 11 (4), pp. 1-13.
Edwards, S.F., 2005. Ownership of Multi-Attribute Fishery Resources
in Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems:
The Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.),
Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 137-154.
Edwards, S.F., J.S. Link and B.P. Rountree, 2005. Portfolio
Management of Fish Communities in Large Marine Ecosystems. In: Sustaining
Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension, Hennessey,
T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol.
13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 181-199.
Edwards, S.F., J.S. Link, and B.P. Rountree, 2004. Portfolio
Management of Wild Fish Stocks, Ecological Economics,
49 (3), pp. 317-329.
Environmental Management
System Library (EMSL), 2005. Road to Successful EMS Implementation,
Online Available June 13, 2005 at http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/ems/index.html. 3 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005. Design for
the Environment: What is an EMS? Online Available, March 19th, at http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgi. 2
pp.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1998a. EPA Position
Statement on Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14001 and
a Request for Comments on the Nature of the Data to be Collected
From Environmental Management Systems/ISO 14000 Pilots. Federal
Register, 63 (48), pp. 12094-12097.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1998b. ISO 14000:
International Environmental Management Standards (Fact Sheet),
EPA/625/F-97/004, April, 6 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1996. Code of Environmental
Management Principles; Notice. Federal Register 61 (201),
pp. 54061- 54066.
Frid, C. O. Paramor and C. Scott, 2005. Ecosystem-based Fisheries
Management: Progress in the NE Atlantic. Marine Policy,
29 (5), pp. 431-469.
Fryxell, G. E., C.W-H. Lo and S. S. Chung. 2004. Influence of
Motivations for Seeking ISO 14001 Certification on Perceptions
of EMS Effectiveness in China. Environmental Management,
33 (2), pp. 239-251.
GAO, United States General Accounting Office, 2004. Individual
Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection and New Entry
Require Periodic Evaluation. Report to Congressional Requesters,
GAO-04-277, 46 pp.
Gable, F. J. 2005. Emergence of a Science Policy-Based Approach
to Ecosystem-Oriented Management of Large Marine Ecosystems.
In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension,
Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems
Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 273-295.
Gable, F. J., 2004. A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
Management and Sustainability: Linkages and Concepts towards
Best Practices. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-184.
84 pp.
Gable, F. J., 2003. A Practice-Based Coupling of the Precautionary
Principle to the Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries Management
Concept with a Policy Orientation: The Northeast United States
Continental Shelf as a Case Example. Coastal Management,
31 (4), pp.435-456.
Garcia, S.M., 2000. The FAO Definition of Sustainable Development
and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: An Analysis
of the Related Principles, Criteria and Indicators. Marine
and Freshwater Research, 51 (5), pp. 535-541.
Gauvin, J.R., K. Haflinger and M. Nerini, 1996. Implementation
of a Voluntary Bycatch Avoidance Program in the Flatfish Fisheries
of the Eastern Bering Sea. In: Proceedings of the Solving
Bycatch Workshop, September 25-27, Seattle, WA., Alaska Sea
Grant College Program, AK-SG-96-03, pp.79-85.
Gauvin, J.R. and C. Rose. 2004. The Development of a Bycatch
Reduction Device (BRD) to Promote Escapement of Pacific Salmon
from Pelagic Trawls Targeting Walleye Pollock. In: Witherell,
D., (editor), Managing our Nation’s Fisheries:
Past, Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference on
Fisheries Management in the United States held in Washington,
D.C., November 2003. p. 218.
Giles, F., 2004. EMS Improvement Through Effective Delegation
of Environmental Responsibilities. Environmental Quality Management,
12 (2), pp. 29-37.
Gober, P., 2000. In Search of Synthesis. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 90 (1), pp. 1-11.
Goodall, B., 1995. Environmental Auditing: A Tool for Assessing
the Environmental Performance of Tourism Firms. The Geographical
Journal, 161 (1), pp. 29-37.
Gray J. S., 1999. Using Science for Better Protection of the
Marine Environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 39 (1-12),
pp. 3-10.
Gray, J. S., D. Calamari, R. Duce, J.E. Portmann, P.G. Wells
and H. L. Windom, 1991. Scientifically Based Strategies for Marine
Environmental Protection and Management. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 22 (9), pp. 432 – 440.
Green, J. L. and 10 Others, 2005. Complexity in Ecology and
Conservation: Mathematical, Statistical, and Computational Challenges. BioScience,
55 (6), pp. 501-510.
Groundfish Forum, 2005. Sea State Program: A Voluntary Bycatch
Reduction Program that has Effectively Reduced Bycatch Rates
in Trawl Fisheries. Online Available May 7th at http://www.groundfishforum.org/Project/SeaState/SeaStsum.html.
1 p.
Gudmundsson, E. and C.R. Wessels, 2000. Ecolabeling Seafood
for Sustainable Production: Implications for Fisheries Management. Marine
Resource Economics, 15 (2), pp. 97-113.
Haflinger, K. E., 2004. Reducing Bycatch Through Avoidance:
Utilizing Near-Real-Time Catch Sampling and Analysis of Spatial
Patterns in Occurrence of Bycatch Species to Provide Fleets with
the Information Needed to Avoid Bycatch. In: Witherell, D., (editor), Managing our
Nation’s Fisheries: Past, Present and Future. Proceedings
of a Conference on Fisheries Management in the United States
held in Washington, D.C., November 2003, p. 232.
Hall, M.A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals, 2000. By-Catch:
Problems and Solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41
(1-6), pp. 204-219.
Hall, S. J. and B. M. Mainprize, 2005. Managing By-catch and
Discards: How Much Progress are we Making and How Can we do Better? Fish
and Fisheries, 6(2) pp. 134-155.
Hanna, S., 2002. Economic Investments to Improve Fisheries Management.
Testimony to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science and
Policy Interface in Fisheries Management Panel, Seattle, WA.
June 14, 6 pp.
Hanna, S., 1999. Strengthening Governance of Ocean Fishery Resources. Ecological
Economics, 31 (2), pp. 275-286.
Hanna, S. S., 1997. The New Frontier of American Fisheries Governance. Ecological
Economics, 20 (3), pp. 221-233.
Hannesson, R., 2004. Eco-labelling in Fisheries: What Is It
All About? (Book Review), Fish and Fisheries, 5 (4), pp.
344-346.
Hart, S. L., 1995. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy
of Management Review, 20 (4), pp. 986-1014.
Heissenbuttel, A. E., 1996. Ecosystem Management – Principles
for Practical Application. Ecological Applications, 6
(3), pp. 730-732.
Hennessey, T., 2005. The Evolution of LME Management Regimes:
The Role of Adaptive Governance. In: Sustaining Large Marine
Ecosystems: The Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen
(eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 319-333.
Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), 2005. Sustaining
Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension. Large Marine
Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 368 pp.
Hens L. and B. Nath, 2003. The Johannesburg Conference. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 5 (1-2), pp.7-39.
Hill, T.R., 2002. Testimony by the Chairman, New England
Fishery Management Council, before the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, Boston, Massachusetts, July. Available online
at: http://www.oceancommission.gov. 6 pp.
Hormozi, A.M. 1997. ISO 14000: The Next Focus In Standardization. S.A.M.
Advanced Management Journal, 62 (3), pp. 32 – 41.
Hoagland, P., D. Jin and H. Kite-Powell, 2003. The Optimal Allocation
of Ocean Space: Aquaculture and Wild-Harvest Fisheries. Marine
Resource Economics, 18 (2), pp. 129-147.
Imperial, M.T and T. Yandle, 2005. Taking Institutions Seriously:
Using the IAD Framework to Analyze Fisheries Policy. Society
and Natural Resources, 18 (6), pp. 493-509.
Jennings, P.D. and P.A. Zandbergen, 1995. Ecologically Sustainable
Organizations: An Institutional Approach. Academy of Management
Review, 20 (4), pp. 1015–1052.
Jennings, S., 2004. The Ecosystem Approach to Fishery Management:
A Significant Step Towards Sustainable Use of the Marine Environment? Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 274, pp. 279-282.
Jentoft, S., 1998. Social Science in Fisheries Management: A
Risk Assessment. In: Reinventing Fisheries Management,
Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series 23, pp.
177-184.
Johnson, S.L. (Deputy Administrator), 2004. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA). Strategy for Determining the Role of Environmental
Management Systems in Regulatory Programs. National Center
for Environmental Innovation, Memorandum and Report dated April
12, 2004, 17 pp.
Jones, C.O., 1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public
Policy. Third Edition. Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando,
Florida, 276 pp.
Joseph, J. 1994. The Tuna-Dolphin Controversy in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean: Biological, Economic, and Political Impacts. Ocean
Development and International Law, 25 (1), pp. 1-30.
Juda, L., and R.H. Burroughs, 1990. The Prospects for Comprehensive
Ocean Management. Marine Policy, 14 (1), pp. 23-35.
Kaplan, I. M. and B. J. McCay, 2004. Cooperative Research, Co-management
and the Social Dimension of Fisheries Science and Management. Marine
Policy, 28 (3), pp. 257-258.
Kates, R.W., T.M. Parris and A.A. Leiserowitz, 2005. What is
Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environment,
47 (3), pp. 8-21.
Klassen, R. D., and C. P. McLaughlin, 1996. The Impact of Environmental
Management on Firm Performance, Management Science 42
(8), pp. 1119 –1214.
Kollman, K., and A. Prakash, 2002. EMS-based Environmental Regimes
as Club Goods: Examining Variations in Firm-level Adoption of
ISO 14001 and EMAS in U.K., U.S. and Germany. Policy Sciences,
35 (1), pp. 43-67.
Laffoley, D.d’A, E. Maltby, M.A. Vincent, L. Mee, E. Dunn,
P. Gilliland, J. Hamer, D. Mortimer, and D. Pound, 2004. The
Ecosystem Approach Coherent Actions for Marine and Coastal Environments.
Summary of Key Issues Prepared for the Second European Marine
Strategy Stakeholder Workshop Rotterdam, 10-12 November 2004,
United Nations Environment Programme, 6th Global Meeting
of the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans Istanbul, Turkey
November 30 to December 2nd, UNEP(DEC)/RS.6.1.INF.7,
6pp.
Larkin, S., G. Sylvia, and C. Tuininga, 2003. Portfolio Analysis
for Optimal Seafood Product Diversification and Resource Management. Journal
of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28 (2), pp. 252-271.
LeBlanc, C., 2003. Ecolabelling in the Fisheries Sector. Ocean
Yearbook, 17, pp. 93-141.
Logar, N. and L.K. Pollock, 2005. Transgenic Fish: Is a New
Policy Framework Necessary for a New Technology? Environmental
Science & Policy, 8 (1), pp. 17-27.
Mansfield, B., 2003. Spatializing Globalization: A “Geography
of Quality” in the Seafood Industry. Economic Geography,
79 (1), pp. 1-16.
Masood, E., D. Spurgeon, and S. Nadis, 1997. Fisheries Science:
All at Sea When it Comes to Politics? Nature 386, (6621),
pp. 105-110.
McCay, B.J., 2004. ITQs and Community: An Essay on Environmental
Governance. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review,
33 (2), pp. 162-170.
Michaels, S., R. J. Mason and W. D. Solecki, 1999. The Importance
of Place in Partnerships for Regional Environmental Management. Environmental
Conservation, 26 (3), pp. 159-162.
Mikalsen, K. H., and S. Jentoft, 2001. From User-Groups to Stakeholders?
The Public Interest in Fisheries Management. Marine Policy,
25 (4), pp. 281-292.
Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood, 1997. Toward a Theory
of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle
of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Science,
22 (4), pp. 853-886.
Montabon, A., S.A. Melnyk, R. Sroufe, and R.J. Calantone, 2000.
ISO 14000: Assessing its Perceived Impact on Corporate Performance. Journal
of Supply Chain Management; 36 (2), pp. 4-16.
Morgan, J.R., 1994. The Marine Region. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 24 (1), pp. 51-70.
Morgan, J.R., 1987. Large Marine Ecosystems: An Emerging Concept
of Regional Management. Environment, 29 (10), pp. 4-9 & 29-34.
Myers, R.A. and B. Worm, 2005. Extinction, Survival or Recovery
of Large Predatory Fishes. Philosophical Transactions of The
Royal Society B, 360 (1453), pp. 13-20.
Myers, R. A. and B. Worm, 2003. Rapid Worldwide Depletion of
Predatory Fish Communities. Nature, 423 (6937), pp. 280-283.
National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. Third-Party
Auditing of Environmental Management Systems: U.S. Registration
Practices for ISO 14001. Washington, D.C., 134 pp.
National Research Council (NRC), 2004a. Improving the Use of
the “Best Scientific Information Available” Standard
In Fisheries Management. Washington, D.C., 105 pp.
National Research Council (NRC), 2004b. Adaptive Management
for Water Resources Project Planning. Washington, D.C.,123 pp.
National Research Council (NRC), 1999. Environmental Management
Systems and ISO 14001. Washington, D.C., 48 pp.
Naughten, K., 2005. Administration Introduces National Offshore
Aquaculture Act. Aquaculture Magazine, 31 (4), pp. 21-26.
Neumayer, E., and R. Perkins, 2004. What Explains the Uneven
Take-up of ISO 14001 at the Global Level? A Panel-data Analysis. Environment
and Planning A, 36 (5), pp. 823-839.
NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005a. Dolphin-Safe Determination.
Online Available February 19th at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/finalfinding.html.3
pp.
NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005b. Litigation Related
to the Tuna/Dolphin Program. Online Available February 19th at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/litigation.html.2 pp.
NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005c. Dolphin-Safe Tuna.
Online Available February 19th at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/dolphin-safe.html.2
pp.
NMFS-Office of Protected Resources. 2005d. International Dolphin
Conservation Program Act. Online Available February 19th at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/IDCPA.html.4 pp.
NOAA, 2002. Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals. Federal
Register 67 (90) pp. 31279 –31280.
NOAA, 2000. Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling; Official Mark. Federal
Register 65 (104)pp. 34408 -34410.
Ochsner, M., 2000. Case Study: Risk Prioritization and ISO 14001
at Acushnet Rubber Company, Environmental Quality Management,
9 (4), pp. 45-52.
Olsen, S. 1999. Linking Integrated Coastal Management with Large
Marine Ecosystems Management. In The Gulf of Maine Large Marine
Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability and Management, H.
Kumpf, K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman, (eds.)., Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Sciences. pp. 626-633.
Olsen, S.B., J. Tobey, and L.Z. Hale, 1998. A Learning-based
Approach to Coastal Management. Ambio 27(8) pp. 611-619.
Oluoch-Wauna, L. O. 2001. EMAS and ISO 14001: A Comparison. Environmental
Policy and Law, 31 (4-5), pp. 237–249.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T.J. Pitcher, U. R.
Sumalia, C. J. Walters, R. Watson and D. Zeller, 2002. Towards
Sustainability in World Fisheries. Nature, 418 (6898),
pp. 689-695.
Pendleton, S., and J. Nagy. 2003. EMS Implementation: Effective
Planning and Targeted Action. Environmental Quality Management,
12 (4), pp. 61-66.
Pitcher, T. J. and D. Pauly, 1998. Rebuilding Ecosystems, not
Sustainability, as the Proper Goal of Fishery Management. In: Reinventing
Fisheries Management, Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B., and
Pauly, D. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries
Series 23, pp. 311-329.
Pojasek, R. B., 2002. Creating a Value-Added, Performance-Driven
Environmental Management System. Environmental Quality Management,
12 (2), pp. 81-88.
Powers, J.E., 2005. Maximum Sustainable Yield and Bycatch Minimization “to
the Extent Practicable”. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, 25 (3), pp. 785-790.
Presidential Documents. 2004a. Committee on Ocean Policy. Executive
Order 13366 of December 17, 2004. (69 F.R. 76591), U. S. Code
Congressional and Administrative News, 108th Congress
Second Session, Volume 5, pp. B121 – B123.
Presidential Documents. 2004b. Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation.
Executive Order 13352 of August 26, 2004. Federal Register,
69 (167), pp. 52989–52990.
Presidential Documents. 2000. Greening the Government Through
Leadership in Environmental Management. Executive Order 13148
of April 21, 2000 (65 F.R. 24595), U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative
News, 106th Congress Second Session, Volume 5,
pp. B10-B23.
Quazi, H. A., Y-K. Khoo, C-M. Tan and P-S. Wong, 2001. Motivation
for ISO 14000 Certification: Development of a Predictive Model. Omega,
The International Journal of Management Science, 29 (6),
pp. 525-542.
Raines, S.S., 2002. Implementing ISO 14001 – An International
Survey Assessing the Benefits of Certification. Corporate
Environmental Strategy, 9 (4), pp. 418-426.
Raloff, J., 2005. Empty Nets: Fisheries May be Crippling Themselves
by Targeting the Big Ones. Science News, 167 (23), pp.
360-362.
Rieser, A., 1997. Property Rights and Ecosystem Management in
U.S. Fisheries: Contracting for the Commons? Ecology Law Quarterly,
24 (4), pp. 813-832.
Ritzert, C. G., 2000. Decision Points in ISO 14001. Environmental
Quality Management 9 (3), pp. 65-74.
Roheim, C. A., 2003. Early Indications of Market Impacts from
the Marine Stewardship Council’s Ecolabeling of Seafood, Marine
Resource Economics, 18 (1), pp. 95-104.
Rondinelli, D., and G. Vastag, 2000. Panacea, Common Sense,
or Just a Label? The Value of ISO 14001 Environmental Management
Systems. European Management Journal, 18 (5), pp. 499-510.
Rosenberg, A.A., 2003. Multiple Uses of Marine Ecosystems. In Responsible
Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson
(eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 189-196.
Sainsbury, K. J., A.E. Punt, and A.D.M. Smith, 2000. Design
of Operational Management Strategies for Achieving Ecosystem
Objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57
(3), pp. 731-741.
Sainsbury, K. and U.R. Sumaila, 2003. Incorporating Ecosystem
Objectives into Management of Sustainable Marine Fisheries, Including ‘Best
Practice’ Reference Points and Use of Marine Protected
Areas. In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Environment,
M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing,
pp. 343-360.
Sanchirico, J.N. and S.S. Hanna, 2004. Sink or Swim Time for
U.S. Fishery Policy. Issues in Science and Technology,
21 (1), pp. 45-52.
Schmid, R.E., 2005. Proposal Would Allow Fish Farming off U.S.
Coasts. The Boston Globe, 267 (159), p. A3.
Seymour, E.J. and A.M. Ridley, 2005. Toward Environmental Management
Systems in Australian Agriculture to Achieve Better Environmental
Outcomes at the Catchment Scale. Environmental Management,
35 (3), pp. 311-329.
Sherman, K., 2005. The Large Marine Ecosystem Approach for Assessment
and Management of Ocean Coastal Waters. In: Sustaining Large
Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension, Hennessey, T. and
J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems Series Vol. 13, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 3-16.
Sherman, K., 1995. Achieving Regional Cooperation in the Management
of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the Large Marine Ecosystem Approach. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 29 (1-3), pp. 165-185.
Sherman, K., 1994. Sustainability, Biomass Yields, and Health
of Coastal Ecosystems: An Ecological Perspective. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 112, pp. 277-301.
Sherman, K., 1991. The Large Marine Ecosystem Concept: Research
and Management Strategy for Living Marine Resources. Ecological
Applications, 1 (4), pp. 349-360.
Sherman, K. and A.M. Duda, 1999a. Large Marine Ecosystems: An
Emerging Paradigm for Fisheries Sustainability. Fisheries,
24 (12), pp. 15-26.
Sherman, K. and A.M. Duda, 1999b. An Ecosystem Approach to Global
Assessment and Management of Coastal Waters. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 190, pp. 271-287.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. The Role of Corporations in Achieving
Ecological Sustainability. Academy of Management Review,
20 (4), pp. 936-960.
Shuman, C.S., G. Hodgson and R.F. Ambrose, 2004. Managing the
Marine Aquarium Trade: Is Eco-certification the Answer? Environmental
Conservation, 31 (4) pp. 339-348.
Sinclair, M., R. Arnason, J. Csirke, Z. Karnicki, J. Sigurjonsson,
H. Rune Skjoldal, and G. Valdimarsson, 2002. Responsible Fisheries
in the Marine Ecosystem. Fisheries Research, 58
(3), pp. 255-265.
Sinclair, M. and G. Valdimarsson, 2003. Appendix 1: Industry
Perspectives. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem.
Sinclair, M. and G. Valdimarsson, eds., FAO and CABI Publishing,
pp. 405-408.
Sissenwine, M.P., and P. M. Mace, 2003. Governance for Responsible
Fisheries: An Ecosystem Approach. In: Responsible Fisheries
in the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson
(eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 363-390.
Sproul, J.T., 1998a. Green Fisheries: Certification as a Management
Tool. In: Reinventing Fisheries Management, Pitcher, T.
J., Hart, P. J. B., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Fish
and Fisheries Series 23, pp. 137-147.
Sproul, J.T., 1998b. Sustainable Fisheries Certification & Labeling
Protocol. Online Available, December 12, 2004 at http://www.ocean98.org/sproul.htm.
7 pp.
Steger, U., 2000. Environmental Management Systems: Empirical
Evidence and Further Perspectives. European Management Journal,
18 (1), pp. 23-37.
Stapleton, P.J., M.A. Glover and S.P. Davis, 2001. Environmental
Management Systems: An Implementation Guide for Small and Medium-Sized
Organizations. (second edition), NSF International, Ann Arbor,
MI., 196 pp.
Steele, L., 2005. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery
Management Plan: Bycatch in the Herring Fishery – Summary
of Available Data. New England Fishery Management Council, Joint
Meeting of the Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) and the
Groundfish PDT, May 5th, Mansfield, MA. 32 pp.
Stehr
Group, 2005. Company Background, Online Available April 16,
2005 at http://www.stehrgroup.net/.
5 pp.
Sutinen, J.G., and 15 Others, 2005. A Framework for Monitoring
and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems.
In: Sustaining Large Marine Ecosystems: The Human Dimension,
Hennessey, T. and J. Sutinen (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems
Series Vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 27-81.
Sutinen, J.G., (Ed.) and 15 Others, 2000. A Framework
for Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of
Large Marine Ecosystems. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-158
32 pp.
Sutton, M., 1998. Harnessing Market Forces and Consumer Power
in Favour of Sustainable Fisheries. In: Reinventing Fisheries
Management, Pitcher, T. J., Hart, P. J. B., and Pauly, D.
(eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series
23, pp. 125-135.
Swallow, S.K., and R.A. Sedjo, 2000. Eco-Labeling Consequences
in General Equilibrium. Land Economics, 76 (1), pp. 28-36.
Swift, J. M. 2002. State Sustainability Program. The Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Executive Department Executive Order No. 438.
Dated: July 23, 2002. 5 pp.
Teisl, M.F., B. Roe, and R.L. Hicks, 2002. Can Eco-Labels Tune
a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 43 (3) pp. 339-359.
The World Bank, 2004. The Reality of Success in Fisheries Management.
Policy Briefs No. 2 Good Management Practice in Sustainable
Fisheries, 4 pp.
Thornton, R.V., 2000. ISO 14001 Certification Mandate Reaches
the Automobile Industry, Environmental Quality Management,
10 (1), pp. 89-93.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2004. Sixth Global
Meeting of the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans Istanbul,
Turkey November 30 to December 2nd.
U.S. Congress, 1996a. National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995. Public Law 104-113, March 7, 1996. United States
Code Congressional and Administrative News, 104th Congress
Second Session Vol. 1.
U.S. Congress, 1996b. National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995. Legislative History, Public Law 104-113, March 7,
1996. United States Code Congressional and Administrative
News, 104th Congress Second Session Vol. 4.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1998. Federal Participation
in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and
in Conformity Assessment Activities. OMB Circular No. A-119,
February 11th, Online Available May 14, 2005 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html.
Valdimarrson, G., and R. Metzner, 2005. Aligning Incentives
for a Successful Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 300, pp. 286-291.
Veeman, T.S. and J. Politylo, 2003. The Role of Institutions
and Policy in Enhancing Sustainable Development and Conserving
Natural Capital. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
5 (3-4), pp. 317-332.
von Zharen, W., M. 1999. An Ecopolicy Perspective for Sustaining
Living Marine Species. Ocean Development & International
Law, 30 (1), pp. 1-41.
von Zharen, W., M. 1998. Ocean Ecosystem Stewardship. William
and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 23 (1), pp.
1-108.
von Zharen, W. M. 1995. Environmental Governance of the Seas,
the Coastal Zone, and Their Resources. Natural Resources & Environment,
9 (4), pp. 3-12.
Wessels, C.R., 2002. The Economics of Information: Markets for
Seafood Attributes. Marine Resource Economics, 17 (2),
pp. 153-162.
Wixted, P., 2003. Department of
Commerce Environmental Management System Implementation Guide.
Online Available, May 2, 2005 at http://www.osec.doc.gov/oas/environmental/implementationguide.htm. 10 pp.
Witherell, D. (ed.), 2004. Managing our Nation’s Fisheries:
Past, Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference on Fisheries
Management in the United States held in Washington, D.C., November
2003. 254 pp.
Wu, C-C and N. Hunt. 2000. Development of Environmental Policy,
Objectives, and Targets. The International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 7 (4), pp. 357 – 361.
Zeller, D., R. Froese, and D. Pauly, 2005. On Losing and Recovering
Fisheries and Marine Science Data. Marine Policy,
29 (1), pp. 69-73.
Zwight, D., 2004. Should ISO 14001 Be Used in National Forest
Planning?: Smokey and the EMS. Environmental Forum, 21
(4), pp. 28-38.
Appendices |
| Appendix 1. |
Harnessing Market Forces in American Fisheries Science Policy |
| Appendix 2. |
A Socio-economic Strategy for the Ocean’s Ecosystem through
Voluntary Environmental Management System(s) in an LME Framework |
| Appendix 3. |
The Marine Stewardship Council as Another Example of Non-governmental
Aquatic Voluntary Environmental Management Systems |
Acronyms |
AAAS |
= American Association for the Advancement of Science |
CEQ |
= (White House) Council on Environmental Quality |
ECPA |
= East Coast Pelagic Association |
EEZ |
= exclusive economic zone |
EIA |
= environmental impact assessment/analysis |
EPA |
= (US) Environmental Protection Agency |
FAO |
= (UN) Food and Agricultural Organization |
| FDA |
= (US) Food and Drug Administration |
| FMP |
= fishery management plan |
| GIS |
= geographical information system |
| GMRI |
= Gulf of Maine Research Institute |
| GPS |
= global positioning system |
| HACCP |
= hazard analysis critical control points |
| ISO |
= International Organization for Standardization |
| ITQ |
= individual transferable quota |
| LME |
= large marine ecosystem |
| MOU |
= memorandum of understanding |
| MSC |
= Marine Stewardship Council |
| NEFMC |
= New England Fishery Management Council |
| NEPA |
= (US) National Environmental Policy Act |
| NMFS |
= National Marine Fisheries Service |
| OMB |
= (White House) Office of Management and Budget |
| QMS |
= quality management system |
| S-K |
= Saltonstall-Kennedy Act |
| TAC |
= total allowable catch |
| UN |
= United Nations |
| UNEP |
= United Nations Environmental Programme |
| VEMS |
= voluntary environmental management system |
| VMS |
= vessel monitoring system |
| WSSD |
= World Summit on Sustainable Development |
| WWF |
= World Wide Fund for Nature |
|
