{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"The National Marine Fisheries Service Take Reduction Team negotiation process evaluation /","Authors":"","Publication date":"1999","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-20-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000131464"},"Pages":["on\n328\n.N38\n1999\nThe National Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team\nNegotiation Process Evaluation\nPrepared by RESOLVE, Inc.\nFor The National Marine Fisheries Service\nDEPARTMENT\nOF\n*\n*\nwww.\nSTATES\nOF\nU.S. Department of Commerce\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nJuly 19, 1999","The National Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team\nNegotiation Process Evaluation\nPrepared by RESOLVE, Inc.\nFor The National Marine Fisheries Service\nSH\nContract # 50-DGNF-5-00164\n328\nN38\n1999\nAND ATMOSPHERIC\nU.S.\nDEP\nPARTMENT\nOF\nU.S. Department of Commerce\nWilliam M. Daley, Secretary\nLIBRARY\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nD. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nPenelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries\nNOAA\nU S Dept of Commerce\nJuly 19, 1999\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999","National Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Negotiation Team\nProcess Evaluation\nTable of Contents\nI. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\ni\nII. INTRODUCTION\n1\nA. BACKGROUND ON THE MMPA AND REQUIREMENT TO CONVENE TRT NEGOTIATIONS\n1\nB. DETAILS ON THE FIVE NEGOTIATIONS\n1\nC. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION\n2\nIII. FINDINGS\n4\nA. REPRESENTATION AND INVOLVEMENT OF VARIOUS SECTORS AND THEIR EXPERIENCE\nWITH MULTI-PARTY NEGOTIATION PROCESSES\n4\n1. Sector Representation\n4\n2. Balance of Perspectives\n5\n3. Experience with Multi-Party Negotiation Processes and TRT Processes\n5\n4. Multi-Party Negotiation Process Experience\n6\n5. Membership on TRTs\n6\n6. Meeting Attendance\n6\nB. THE VALUE OF THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS\n6\n1. Opportunity to Express Views and Opinions\n7\n2. Others Opportunity to Express Views\n7\n3. Views and Opinion Taken Seriously and Incorporated Into the Recommended Plan\n8\n4. Data\n9\n5. Fairness\n9\n6. Satisfaction With Results/Outcome\n10\n7. Effectiveness of Process in Marine Resource Management\n12\n8. Time Management\n12\n9. Benefits/Difficulties\n13\nC. FACILITATOR PERFORMANCE\n14\n1. Facilitator Contact Before Meeting\n14\n2. Information About Process and Role\n14\n3. Overall Rating of Facilitator Performance\n14\n4. Other Ratings\n15\nD. ADEQUACY OF MEETING ADMINISTRATION\n15\nE. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND ADVICE FOR MULTI-PARTY NEGOTIATIONS\n16\n1. How to Involve Public When NMFS Publishes Proposed Plan\n16\n2. How to Improve the Process\n16\n3. Advice for Future Participants and Facilitators in Multi-Party Negotiation Processes\n17\nIV. DISCUSSION\n17\nV. CONCLUSION\n19\nAPPENDIX 1. SURVEY RESULTS FROM FIVE TAKE REDUCTION TEAM PROCESS EVALUATIONS\nAPPENDIX 2. SURVEY INSTRUMENT\nAPPENDIX 3. SURVEY RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999","I. Executive Summary\netween 1996 and 1997, Abby Arnold, RESOLVE, in collaboration with Abby Dilley, The\nB\nKeystone Center, Alana Knaster, The Mediation Institute, and Susan Podziba and\nAssociates, convened and facilitated five multi-party negotiation processes for the National\nMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under requirements established by the 1994 Amendments to\nthe Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the NMFS was charged with forming teams made\nup of academics, researchers, conservation organizations, fisherman, federal and state regulators\nand gear technologists. The Teams were charged with developing consensus recommendations\nfor how to reduce incidental take of strategic marine mammals during commercial fishing\noperations. Five Take Reduction Teams met between 1996-1997. Each team met five to eight\ntimes over six months. Three of the five teams reached consensus on a management plan to\nreduce incidental take of marine mammals by fishing activities. One team reached partial\nconsensus and a third did not reach consensus on recommendations for reducing incidental take.\nThe teams that did not reach full consensus delivered a report to the NMFS describing\ndifferences and points of agreement. The plans are currently in the implementation stage.\nThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS, Office of Protected\nResources contracted with RESOLVE to evaluate the facilitated portion of the Take Reduction\nTeam negotiation process. RESOLVE, with the assistance of an independent researcher,\nconducted an evaluation of that process in the summer and fall of 1998. The evaluation design\nemployed a mail survey, with open and closed ended questions. There was one mailing of the\nsurvey. The return rate was 71%. This report documents the evaluation of the NMFS Take\nReduction Team (TRT) negotiations. The evaluation, and this report, do not include actions that\noccurred after the Teams submitted their recommendation or reports to NMFS.\nThe evaluation found that, overall, most respondents thought the negotiation process itself was\nvaluable and that the facilitators were fair and helpful. Respondents thought they could express\ntheir viewpoints and, for those teams that reached agreement, the negotiated plan incorporated\ntheir views. Respondents who thought their opinions were taken seriously and incorporated into\nthe plan also thought the process was fair. On the other hand, respondents who did not think\ntheir opinions were taken seriously did not think the process was fair. Evaluation respondents\nstated their concern that the process could have used more time than the six months allowed by\nlaw. Respondents satisfaction with the results was statistically associated with whether there was\nadequate time for negotiations, whether they thought their opinions were taken seriously and\nwhether their team reached agreement. Respondents also were troubled by the lack of data and\nwhat they described as the lack of unbiased data. Finally, respondents thought some of the\ngroups were too large.\nAlthough, at the request of NMFS, the survey only focused on the actual negotiation process, it is\nunlikely that respondents evaluated the Take Reduction Team negotiation experience separate\nfrom their overall experience with the Take Reduction Plan development process. While many\nrespondents reported satisfaction with the facilitators and the negotiation process, the whole\ncontext was important as they assessed the value of the multi-party negotiation process.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.i","There are at least four factors that seem to have affected respondents perception of the process.\nFirst, unlike many other mediated processes, these Teams were mandated by federal law (the\nMMPA). NMFS did not have a choice but to convene the Teams. Parties did not have a choice\nbut to participate, or feel their voice would not be represented. Second, while the technical data\nused in the process had undergone vigorous scientific review, the data had been generated by\nNMFS and its contractors. The parties did not agree on the data which was used to establish the\nneed for the team and to identify which marine mammals were in need of recovery. Thus, the\nneed for establishing the teams and the data used in the negotiations was not necessarily\nendorsed by all parties at the table. A third factor affecting respondents' answers was whether the\nrecommendations developed at the Team level were reflected in NMFS published plans. Finally,\nwhether NMFS published the plans in the time frame promised during the TRT negotiation\nprocess was a factor affecting respondents perceptions.\nThese contextual factors had as much of an impact on respondents' assessment of the TRT\nprocess as did the planning, dynamics, facilitation and decision making during the negotiation\nprocess. As NMFS contemplates future participation in and use of multi-party negotiation\nprocesses, the evaluation results underscore that consensus processes can be time consuming and\ndemanding, and participants may not be willing to invest the needed resources if they are unsure\nthat their recommendations will be implemented.\nThe findings of this evaluation suggest that NMFS should conduct feasibility and convening\nassessments before beginning TRT negotiations. The assessment should address and perhaps,\ndevelop protocols up front on which parties should participate, what the data requirements are for\neffective participation, whether the goals of the process are advisory or consensus\ndecisionmaking, how the NMFS will participate at the table, what the time frames for negotiation\nare and how or whether the consensus agreements will be implemented. These understanding\nmight alleviate many parties' dissatisfaction with the final outcome of negotiations.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.ii","II. Introduction\nA. Background on the MMPA and Requirement to Convene TRT\nNegotiations\nn 1994 Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The Act is\nI\ndesigned to establish a long-term regime for governing interactions between marine\nmammals and commercial fisheries. The new section 117 of the MMPA requires NMFS to\ncomplete stock assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S.\njurisdiction. These stock assessments must include a calculation of a Potential Biological\nRemoval (PBR). The MMPA defines the term PBR as the maximum number of animals, not\nincluding natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while still\nallowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. Stocks which are\ndetermined to have incidental takes that exceed the PBR are designated as strategic. In addition,\nstocks that are declining and are likely to be listed as threatened or endangered under the\nEndangered Species Act (ESA) or are listed as depleted under the MMPA are designated\nstrategic stocks.\nFor fisheries that frequently or occasionally interact with strategic stocks resulting in mortalities\nor serious injury, section 118(f) of the MMPA requires NMFS to establish Take Reduction\nTeams (TRTs). These TRTs must develop plans for how to reduce incidental take of the\nstrategic stock. The MMPA establishes a six month time frame for the development of TRT\nplans. Members of teams should include individuals who represent the variety of interested or\naffected parties from the commercial and recreational fishing industry, appropriate Regional\nFishery Management Councils, interstate fisheries commissions, academic and scientific\norganizations, state officials, native Alaskans or other Native Americans, if appropriate, and\nenvironmental groups. The MMPA directs teams to develop plans through consensus. If teams\ncannot reach consensus, then they submit a report to NMFS identifying areas of agreement and\ndisagreement.\nAt the end of the negotiation period, each Take Reduction Team is required to present a draft\nTake Reduction Plan to the NMFS. NMFS is to consider these draft plans in developing\nimplementation plans. The proposed plans are to be published in the Federal Register for public\ncomment. If NMFS proposed plans differ from TRT recommendations, NMFS is to state the\ndifferences and rationale for the differences in the Federal Register notice. Plans are then\nfinalized.\nB. Details on the Five TRT Negotiations\nMFS convened five Take Reduction Teams between 1996-1997. NMFS awarded Abby\nN\nArnold, RESOLVE, a contract to manage the facilitation of the five TRT processes. Ms.\nArnold facilitated two negotiations and Abby Dilley, The Keystone Center, Susan Podziba,\nSusan Podziba and Associates, and Alana Knaster, The Mediation Institute, each facilitated one\nteam negotiation.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.1","Each team included representatives from a cross spectrum of interests including academics,\nconservation organizations, fishermen, federal and state regulators, and gear technology experts.\nTeam members were chosen in consultation with affected parties and NMFS. The facilitators\ngenerated a list of possible team candidates from convening calls. NMFS selected who would be\ninvited. NMFS had at least one, if not two or more representatives, as team members during\neach TRT meeting. NMFS representatives from the headquarters Office of Protected Resources\nwere present at all negotiations. However, in most negotiations, the NMFS Regional Office of\nProtected species representative was the primary NMFS representative to the team.\nThe names of the teams, numbers in each team and facilitator for each team follows:\nFacilitator\nTake Reduction Team (TRT)\nNumber of\nMembers\nAbby Dilley, The Keystone Center\nAtlantic Large Whale TRT\n32\nAbby Arnold, RESOLVE\nMid-Atlantic Harbor Porpoise TRT\n32\nAbby Arnold, RESOLVE\nGulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise TRT\n22\nSusan Podziba, Susan Podziba and Associates\nAtlantic Offshore Cetacean TRT\n18\nAlana Knaster, The Mediation Institute\nPacific Offshore Cetacean TRT\n12\nSome participants served on more than one Take Reduction Team.\nEach team met five to eight times over six months. TRT teams met locally. The Atlantic Large\nWhale team and the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean team met in the Boston area; the Gulf of Maine\nTRT meetings were in New England, outside of Boston; and the Mid-Atlantic team meetings\nwere in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, DC. The Pacific Offshore Cetacean team met\nin San Diego, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay area.\nThe recommended TRT plans needed to address the dual challenge of meeting MMPA and ESA\nrequirements. The fishery data was developed by NMFS and its contractors and provided to each\nteam. Three of the five teams reached consensus on a management plan. These teams were the\nGulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise, Atlantic Offshore Cetacean, and the Pacific Offshore Cetacean\nTake Reduction teams. The two teams that did not reach full consensus delivered a report to\nNMFS describing points of agreement and differences. These teams were the Atlantic Large\nWhale and the Mid-Atlantic TRT. When TRTs did not reach consensus, NMFS used\ninformation gathered during the negotiation process to develop a proposed and final take\nreduction plan.\nC. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation\nyear after the completion of all the teams' deliberations, RESOLVE, at the request of\nA\nNMFS, conducted an evaluation of the TRT process. NMFS wanted to evaluate the\nprocess of using multi-party negotiation in take reduction teams to develop recommendations on\nresource management, including how NMFS should improve the process. RESOLVE conducted\nthe evaluation in consultation with the three other facilitators.\nRESOLVE designed the evaluation method and instrument in collaboration with Michelle\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.2","LeBaron, of the Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University.\nProfessor LeBaron has extensive expertise in evaluating dispute resolution processes. She was\nalso able to ensure objectivity in the evaluation design, data analysis and in report review. The\nNMFS staff and all four facilitators also reviewed and edited the evaluation instrument. This\nreport was written by Juliana Birkhoff, RESOLVE's Director of Research and Education, and\nedited by the four facilitators and NMFS for accuracy.\nThe survey focused solely on the negotiation process for developing recommendations for the\ninitial draft take reduction plans and did not question respondents about the implementation of\nthe recommendations or development of the Final Take Reduction Plans. These issues are\nNMFS's responsibility and outside the stakeholders' responsibility. The Process Evaluation\nSurvey was organized around four general questions:\n1. Who participated in the Take Reduction team, which groups did they represent, were\nenough viewpoints and an appropriate balance of stakeholder interests included?\n2. How valuable was the negotiation process for participants? How did participants\nrate the opportunities to express their viewpoints? Did participants think the process\nwas fair? Were they satisfied with the results at the end of the negotiation process?\n3. What was the role and effectiveness of the TRT facilitators?\n4. Should NMFS use this process again, and if so, how should NMFS improve it?\nTeam members were asked to answer yes or no questions, short answer questions, to classify\nitems as satisfactory or not satisfactory, and to rank several facilitator characteristics as excellent,\ngood, or poor. RESOLVE mailed the survey to all 92 members of the five Take Reduction\nteams. Team members were given three weeks to complete the survey. Sixty-five respondents\nreturned surveys to RESOLVE. The 71% response rate indicates a high level of TRT member\nparticipation and interest.\nResponses to the open-ended questions were summarized and the number of times a person\nmentioned a theme was recorded. Responses to the close ended questions were coded by team in\na Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. Responses were summarized by percentage, and by team for\neach question. Several of the questions were coded by individual response in the Statistical\nSoftware Package. Only questions with a large enough number of responses which included an\nimportant variable were coded individually. Non-parametric statistical tests of significance were\nperformed on those questions.\nThis report describes the survey evaluation instrument and summarizes the survey results as\ngeneral findings for all the TRT negotiations. Appendix 1 includes the survey results, coded by\nteam. Appendix 2 is the survey instrument. Appendix 3 is the code book for the variables that\nwere coded by individual. Appendix 4 is the aggregated comments from the responses to the\nsurvey. The findings are presented under the following report headings:\nA. Representation and Involvement of Various Sectors and Their Experience with\nMulti-Party Negotiation Processes\nB. The Value of the Negotiation Process\nC. Facilitator Performance\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.3","D. Adequacy of Meeting Administration\nE. Suggested Improvements and Advice for Multi-Party Negotiations\nIII. Findings\nA. Representation and Involvement of Various Sectors and Their\nExperience with Multi-Party Negotiation Processes\nhe representation and involvement of various sectors in the process is an important measure\nT\nof the legitimacy of consensus processes and contributes to success. The survey explored\nthe following questions about each participant:\nWho participated in the Take Reduction team compared to who is represented in\nthe survey?\nWhich groups were represented?\nDid the individuals know each other in advance?\nWere enough and all those affected or impacted included in the process?\nHow many meetings did participants attend?\nGenerally, survey respondents came from a variety of viewpoints, knew people from their own\nand at least one other sector, and thought the team composition reflected a balance of\nperspectives.\nA1. Sector Representation\nChart 1 provides more details about participation. To determine the representation of interested\nparties of the five Take Reduction teams, question three of the survey inquired which sector the\nrespondent represented. The largest number of survey respondents represented the fishing\nindustry (41%). The next largest numbers of survey respondents represented the environmental\nor conservation sector (19%), state agencies (16%), and academics/scientists (14%).\nChart 1.\nSector Representation\nOther\nFederal\nFishery\n2%\n13%\nCouncil\n5%\nAcademic Scientific\n14%\nFishing\nIndustry\n41%\nState\n16%\nEnviron/Conservation\n19%\nThe response to the survey does not differ significantly from the sector representation in the\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.4","original TRT. The original Take Reduction Teams included 39% fishing industry, 20%\nacademic/scientific, 19% state, 14% environmental/conservation, 7% fisheries council, 1% non-\nNMFS federal representatives.\n2. Balance of Perspectives\nSeventy-nine percent of the respondents thought that the TRT membership reflected a balance of\nperspectives, while 21% thought it did not. Six participants in the Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans\nteam thought their TRT reflected a balance of perspectives, while five members thought that it\ndid not. In both the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean and the Mid-Atlantic teams, respondents\nsuggested there was not enough representation from scientific and environmental viewpoints.\nChart 2.\nDid the TRT Membership Reflect a Balance of\nPerspectives?\nNo\n21%\nYes\n79%\nA 3. Experience With Multi-Party Negotiation Processes and TRT Processes\nhe survey assessed what kinds of experiences participants had with negotiation processes in\nT\ngeneral and specifically with other TRT negotiation processes. Participants with previous\nexperience in multi-party negotiation processes might participate differently from those who had\nno previous experiences. Previous experience with multi-party negotiation processes might serve\nas informal negotiation training and therefore, those informed participants might be better\nprepared to participate. To understand this dimension of their experience, the survey explored\nthe following questions:\nwhat kinds of experiences did participants have with multi-party negotiations\nbefore the process?\nand specifically, did they have experiences with other Take Reduction team\nprocesses?\nIn general, the survey found that about two thirds of the respondents had some experience with\ngeneral negotiation processes. However, for one half of the respondents, the specific TRT multi-\nparty negotiation process was new. The following provides more details about findings on\nnegotiation experience.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.5","A 4. Multi-Party Negotiation Process Experience\nSixty-six percent of the respondents had previously participated in similar multi-party\nnegotiation processes, while 34% had not. For those who had participated in other processes:\n40% participated in at least one to two other negotiations and 16% participated in three to four\nother negotiations. Forty-four percent of the respondents took part in more than five other\nnegotiations before participating in this multi-party negotiation. There was no statistical\nassociation with level of experience and perception of process fairness, satisfaction with the\noutcome, or mediators performance, largely because the response rate was not large enough.\nA 5. Membership on TRT 's\nFifty-one percent of the respondents were members of only one TRT. However, 29% of the\nrespondents were members of at least two TRTs; 2% of the respondents participated in three\nTRTs; and 18% participated in four TRTs.\nA 6. Meeting Attendance\nSeventy-seven percent of the respondents participated in all of their TRT meetings, 20% attended\nmore than half of their TRT meetings and 3% of the respondents participated in one to two of\ntheir team's meetings.\nB. The Value of the Negotiation Process\nassess how valuable the negotiation process was for participants, the survey asked them\nT\nabout:\nopportunities to express viewpoints,\nthe adequacy of data and support in understanding it,\nthe structure and use of time in the negotiation process,\nand meeting times and locations.\nIn general, the respondents thought the process was valuable. They thought they could express\ntheir viewpoints and, for those teams that reached agreement, the negotiated plan incorporated\ntheir views. Many respondents thought there was not enough data to help them in making good\ndecisions. However, in all but one of the TRT teams, respondents thought they had enough help\ninterpreting the data that was available. Many respondents thought the process would have\nbenefited from more time for formal negotiations. However, most respondents thought there was\nenough time for the more informal negotiations and caucuses.\nApproximately three quarters of the respondents thought the negotiations were fair, while one\nquarter thought they were not. However, 60% of the respondents were dissatisfied with the final\nresults at the end of the last meeting. Respondents who were dissatisfied with the final results at\nthe end of the last meeting thought there was not enough time for negotiations. Teams that\nreached agreements and respondents who thought their opinions were taken seriously and\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.6","incorporated into the plan were more likely to report satisfaction with the results of the meeting.\nIt is also likely, based on the comments, that if the recommendations had been implemented as\nagreed there would be less dissatisfaction with the negotiation process.\nThe following three pages provide more details on respondents assessments of the value of the\nnegotiation process.\nB1. Opportunity to Express Views and Opinions\no assess respondents participation and voice in the negotiations, the survey asked\nT\nparticipants how often during the TRT meetings they were given the opportunity to express\ntheir views.\nSixty-nine percent of the respondents said they could always express their views. Thirty-one\npercent of the respondents said they could express their views most of the time. Several\nrespondents from the Atlantic Large Whale and the Mid-Atlantic teams commented that their\nTRT group was too large to explore ideas in depth.\nChart 3.\nHow Often Views Expressed\nNone of the time\n0%\nMost of the Time\n31%\nAll the time\n69%\nB2. Others Opportunity to Express Views\narticipants were asked whether they thought others were given the opportunity to express\nP\ntheir views during meetings.\nNinety five per cent thought others could express their views. 5% of the respondents thought\nothers were not given the opportunity to express their views during meetings. Respondents from\nthe Atlantic Large Whale, Pacific Offshore Cetaceans, and Mid-Atlantic teams commented that\nmost of the time others were given the opportunity to express their views. However, time\nconstraints and the size of the group sometimes hindered complete expression of views. The\nrespondents thought the other participants had more opportunities to express their views than\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.7","they had. This is not unusual in negotiation processes because each respondent knows what they\nrefrained or ran out of time to say, but would not necessarily know that about other participants.\nThe following chart illustrates these findings.\nChart 4.\nDid Others Have the\nOpportunity to Express Their\nViews?\nNo\n5%\nYes\n95%\nB 3. Views and Opinions Taken Seriously and Incorporated Into the\nRecommended Plan\nhe opportunity for participants to tell their story in their own words and have their\nT\nviewpoint reflected in final decisions is one of the benefits of multi-party negotiation\nprocesses. The survey asked participants whether they thought their opinions were taken\nseriously and incorporated into the plan.\nThe survey found that 82% of the respondents thought their opinions were taken seriously and\nincorporated into the recommended plan. 18% of the respondents thought their opinions were\nnot taken seriously or incorporated into the plan. Two respondents from the Atlantic Large\nWhale and the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean teams commented that while their comments were\ntaken seriously, they were not optimistic that the plan incorporated their ideas. A respondent\nfrom the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean team thought some practical alternatives and initiatives\nwere halted outright. One respondent from the Mid-Atlantic team thought that members from\none sector were taken more seriously than those from others. The following chart illustrates\nthese findings.\nChart 5.\nWere Your Opinions Taken\nSeriously and Incorporated\nInto the Plan?\nNo\n18%\nYes\n82%\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.8","B4. Data\nn complex marine management issues, sometimes all the desired data is not available. To\nI\nassess how much of an impact participants thought data availability had on the success of\ntheir negotiations, the survey asked respondents whether they thought they had enough data in\ntheir TRT process to support the negotiation.\nSixty-eight percent of the respondents thought there was not enough data, while 32% of the\nrespondents thought there was enough data. Respondents from all five teams commented on the\nlack of data and that the data gaps and data interpretations created difficulties at their team\nmeetings. Lack of data was particularly important for respondents from the Gulf of Maine,\nAtlantic Offshore Cetacean and Atlantic Large Whale teams. Some respondents from the Gulf of\nMaine and the Atlantic Large Whale teams noted that good data did not exist. Other respondents\nfrom the Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans and Atlantic Large Whale teams thought there was data,\nbut NMFS presented it poorly.\nChart 6.\nDid You Have Sufficient Data to\nSupport Your TRT Negotiation?\nYes\n32%\nNo\n68%\nThe survey also asked participants whether they had the necessary help to interpret the data.\nEighty-four percent of the respondents thought they were given adequate help to interpret such\ndata, while 16% thought they could have been given more help. Several respondents from all the\nteams commented that the NMFS scientists provided a good presentation of the data and made\nthe data understandable. Respondents from the Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans and Mid-Atlantic\nteams thought the analysis and presentation of the data was uneven. Respondents from the Gulf\nof Maine and Pacific Offshore Cetacean team noted that the data can be interpreted in many\nways and that having an independent statistician might be useful.\nB5. Fairness\nhe survey inquired whether participants thought the process was fair and if they were\nT\nsatisfied with the outcome after the negotiations.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.9","Seventy-eight percent of the respondents thought the negotiations were fair. Twenty-two percent\nof the respondents thought the negotiations were not fair. Using statistical analyses, the data\nwere scrutinized to see if there was any relationship or correlation between opinions of how fair\nthe process was and: 1) TRT team, 2) sector membership, 3) own opportunity to express views,\n4) others ability to present views, 5) and/or whether their opinion was taken seriously and\nincorporated into the plan. Respondents' evaluation of whether their opinions were taken\nseriously was associated with their assessment of how fair the process was. Respondents who\nthought their opinion was taken seriously and incorporated into the plan also thought the process\nwas fair. On the other hand, respondents who did not think their opinions were taken seriously\ndid not think the process was fair1. This is not surprising, since the belief that one's opinion is\nbeing taken seriously and the need to see it reflected in decisions is one of the values of\ncollaborative processes. This is frequently a measure of whether a process is believed to be fair.\nThere was no statistical association between respondents assessment of the process as fair and\nTRT team, sector membership, own opportunity to express views, and others ability to present\nviews.\nSeveral respondents from the Gulf of Maine and Atlantic Large Whale teams commented that the\nfacilitators did a good job at maintaining a fair atmosphere. One respondent thought the process\nwas as fair as it could be given the political context of the issues. At least one respondent\nthought that individuals with experience in previous TRTs could exercise more control of the\nprocess than individuals who were new to the process. Another thought the overall process was\nfair, but thought there was a slight bias toward the industry perspective. The following chart\nillustrates the findings on fairness.\nChart 7.\nDid You Feel the TRT\nNegotiation Process was Fair?\nNo\n22%\nYes\n78%\nB 6. Satisfaction With Results/Outcome\nhe survey asked participants whether at the end of the last meeting they were satisfied with\nT\nthe final results/outcome.\nForty percent of the respondents were satisfied with the results, while 60% were not satisfied\n1 Chi square = 7.095, df = 1, asymptotic significance = .008, Cramer's V = .347.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 10","with the results. The data were arranged to see if there was any relationship between satisfaction\nwith the outcomes and: 1) team, 2) sector, 3) reached agreement, 4) own opportunity to express\nviews, 5) others ability to present views, 6) opinions taken seriously, and/or 7) adequate time for\nnegotiations. Three factors were associated with satisfaction with the final outcome: whether the\nteam reached agreement; whether the respondent's opinion was taken seriously and incorporated\ninto the plan; and, whether there was adequate time for negotiations.\nRespondents' evaluation of their satisfaction was definitely connected to whether or not they felt\nthey had adequate time for negotiations2. Whether the team reached agreement was also\nassociated with satisfaction. Respondents whose teams reached agreement were satisfied with\nthe final result and those teams that did not reach agreement were not satisfied. Finally,\nrespondents who felt their opinions were taken seriously were also satisfied with the final results.\nRespondents who did not think their opinions were taken seriously and incorporated into the plan\nwere not satisfied with the final results3.\nThere was no relationship between satisfaction with final result and team, sector, own\nopportunity to express views, or others ability to present views.\nChart 8.\nPercent Satisfied at End of Last Meeting\nYes\n40%\nNo\n60%\nOne respondent from the Atlantic Large Whale TRT summed up many of the responses saying,\n\"There were too many people trying to address too complex an issue in too little time.\" A\nrespondent from the Pacific Offshore Cetaceans TRT commented that there was SO little time that\nthere was no opportunity to discuss future or alternative strategies. Other respondents from the\nAtlantic Large Whale and Mid-Atlantic teams thought the process was unsuccessful because the\ngroup did not have enough time and because they did not reach consensus. A respondent from\nthe Mid-Atlantic TRT commented they were dissatisfied because the meeting ended on a bad\nnote, with some feeling disenchanted with the entire process. Finally, others thought it was\nunrealistic to bring in all interested parties to negotiate a shared or agreed upon outcome.\n2\nChi square = 17.618, df = 1, asymptotic significance = .000, Cramer's V = .537\n3\nChi square = 6.711, df = 2, asymptotic significance = .035, Cramer's V = 3.29, Chi square = 8.123, df = 1, asymptotic\nsignificance = .004, Cramer's V = .365.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.11","B7. Effectiveness of Process in Marine Resource Management\nEighty-six percent of the respondents thought the multi-party negotiation process was effective in\nmarine resource management decision making. 14% of the respondents thought the process was\nnot effective. Many respondents commented that the multi-party negotiation process presented\nstakeholders with an opportunity to have input and for decision makers to gain a broader\nperspective. Others said that although it is an effective process, it is only as effective as NMFS\nallows it to be and SO far NMFS has not implemented many of the plans. Several respondents\ncommented that the process is only worthwhile if NMFS participates effectively and carries out\nany decisions reached. Others expressed concern that the process is biased, and it is a no-win\nsituation for the commercial fishing industry.\nChart 9.\nEffectiveness of Process in Marine\nResource Management\nNo\n14%\nYes\n86%\nB. 8. Time Management\narticipants were questioned about the structure of the meetings, and whether time was used\nP\nefficiently.\nEighty-five percent thought the process included enough time for informal negotiations. Fifteen\nof the respondents thought that more time could have been set aside for informal negotiations\nwith parties that had disparate views. Some respondents commented that even though there was\ntime for informal negotiations, some parties did not participate in\nthose informal discussions.\nNinety percent of the respondents thought that adequate time was given to caucuses for parties\nwith similar views. Ten percent of the respondents thought more time could have been given to\nsuch caucuses.\nThe survey asked participants if there was enough time for the formal negotiations. Sixty percent\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 12","of the respondents thought there was enough time for negotiations and 40% of the respondents\nthought there was not enough time. As noted above, the lack of time was significantly correlated\nwith respondents' satisfaction with the results at the end of the negotiations. In particular, of the\n17 respondents from the Atlantic Large Whale team, 13 respondents thought there was not\nenough time. Several of them commented that more flexibility on the deadline might have\nresulted in consensus recommendations.\nOf the 29 people who answered that they would have preferred more time for negotiations, 38%\nthought two more months would have been enough and 21% thought three more months was\nneeded. 41% of the respondents recommended more time in general without recommending a\nspecific time frame. The following chart illustrates the findings about time.\nChart 10.\nWas there Adequate Time for the\nTRT Negotiation Process?\nNo\n40%\nYes\n60%\nB. 9 Benefits/Difficulties\nrespondents thought one of the most beneficial aspects of the TRT negotiation process was\nR\nthe open-forum opportunity to exchange views. Other respondents explained that gaining a\nclearer and balanced perspective of the issues and other viewpoints was valuable. A respondent\nremarked that participants gained an education about each other and different sectors' interests\nthat allowed for more reasoned and well developed discussions. Others commented on the\nopportunity to be a part of a solution process where one group did not \"win\". Many respondents\nthought the opportunity to work together on a common goal was particularly helpful.\nConversely, participants remarked that the lack of NMFS implementation after long and difficult\nnegotiations was one of the most difficult aspects of the TRT process. Respondents from all five\nteams remarked on the difficulty of working with insufficient data, data that was perceived as\nbiased, or the inability to absorb all of the data given such tight time constraints. Several\nrespondents were also frustrated at the participation of NMFS staff in the meeting. They\ncommented on the perceived lack of commitment to the process and the lack of NMFS staff in\nthe process with adequate authority. Several respondents noted the difficulty of negotiating an\nagreement with SO many different interests, particularly in such large groups. Two respondents\nremarked on the difficulty of working with participants who did not fully disclose information\nand interests. Finally, several respondents commented on the difficulty of working with difficult\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 13","personalities and trying to understand and embrace others' perspectives.\nC. Facilitator Performance\nhe survey also assessed facilitator performance. The facilitators were an option for NMFS,\nT\ntherefore, the survey assessed performance SO that NMFS could determine whether they\nshould have facilitators in the future. Although negotiation can and does proceed successfully\nwithout a facilitator, a facilitator can often structure a fair and inclusive process leading to\nincreased stakeholder satisfaction with the process. To evaluate facilitator performance, the\nsurvey asked questions about communication, understanding of the issues and ability to structure\na good process.\nIn general, the survey found that respondents thought the facilitators were approachable,\ncommunicated effectively with participants, responded to concerns, managed the process\neffectively and were fair. Respondents who thought they had an opportunity to express their\nviews and who thought their opinions were taken seriously rated their facilitator's performance as\nexcellent. The following provides more details on facilitator performance.\nC. 1. Facilitator Contact Before Meeting\nhe TRT facilitator was responsible for contacting each of the participants before the\nT\nnegotiations began. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents stated the TRT facilitator had\ncontacted them before the first meeting of the Take Reduction team. Two percent of the\nrespondents stated the facilitator had not contacted them.\nC.2. Information About Process and Role\nhe facilitator was responsible for explaining the process and each participant's role in the\nT\nprocess to each participant. Eighty-six percent of the respondents stated the facilitator\ngave them sufficient information about their role. However, 14% thought they could have been\ngiven more information about their role. Ninety-five percent of the respondents said they\nunderstood the purpose of the process after speaking with the TRT facilitator. Five percent of\nthe respondents would have liked more explanation about the purpose of these processes.\nEighty-nine percent of the respondents thought the facilitator had clearly explained the types of\ndiscussion issues the TRT process would cover. Eleven percent of the respondents would have\nliked more information about these discussion issues before the meeting began.\nC. 3 Overall Rating of Facilitator Performance\nn the overall rating of the facilitators performance, 60% rated the facilitator's performance\nO\nas excellent. Thirty-five percent of the respondents rated the facilitator's performance as\ngood, and only 5% rated the facilitator's performance as poor. The following chart illustrates\nfindings about facilitator performance.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 14","Chart 11.\nRatings of Facilitator Performance\nPoor\n5%\nExcellent\nGood\n60%\n35%\nC. 4 Other Ratings\nhe survey also asked participants to rate other characteristics of the facilitators'. The results\nT\nare summarized below:\nChart 12.\nAdditional Facilitator Ratings\nPlease Rate the Facilitator on the Following Characteristics:\nExcellent\nGood\nPoor\na. Approachability\n75%\n23%\n2%\nb.1. Communication during meeting\n65%\n38%\n6%\nb.2. Communication in between meetings\n56%\n38%\n6%\nC. Responsiveness\n62%\n32%\n6%\nd. Ability to move meeting process forward\n47%\n45%\n8%\ne. Ability to break impasse\n41%\n48%\n11%\nf. Ability to capture ideas\n60%\n35%\n5%\ng. Fair with all parties\n67%\n24%\n9%\nh. Understanding of the issues\n41%\n56%\n3%\nD. Adequacy of Meeting Administration\nespondents of the five Take Reduction teams were generally satisfied with advanced notice\nR\nof meetings, meeting locations, advance packet materials, length of meetings and meeting\nsummaries.\nSome respondents commented that the advance materials could have better organized and mailed\nout earlier. Others commented that the meeting summaries were late or flawed which caused a\nbreakdown in the process and required further telephone conversations for final sign-off.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.15","E. Suggested Improvements and Advice for Multi-Party Negotiation\nProcesses\nhe survey examined participants' viewpoints on 1) how to improve the process, 2) how the\nT\nNMFS should involve the public after NMFS publishes a proposed plan and 3) how future\nnegotiators and facilitators should prepare to participate in multi-party negotiation processes.\nIn general, the survey found that approximately 60% of the respondents would advise the NMFS\nto hold another TRT meeting during the public comment period. Respondents urged NMFS to\nschedule more time for negotiations and to be more flexible about deadlines. There were several\nsuggestions about how data should be gathered, analyzed and disseminated in the future to\nimprove the use of data within the process. Respondents encouraged NMFS to organize the\ninitial phases of the process SO that there was more time and potential for creative problem\nsolving. Finally, several respondents commented that without a firm commitment from NMFS\nto implement decisions within agreed upon time lines, the TRT process was not useful.\nE 1. How to Involve Public When NMFS Publishes Proposed Plan\nhe survey asked whether NMFS should hold a TRT Meeting while the NMFS Proposed\nT\nManagement Plan is out for public comment. Sixty-one percent of the respondents thought\nit would be good to hold TRT meetings when the proposed plan was out for public comment.\n39% of the respondents thought it was not a good idea. Of the 61% who thought the NMFS\nshould hold TRT meetings, those who commented differed about when to hold the TRT meeting.\nCommenters suggested that the best time could be before the NMFS plan is printed in the\nFederal Register, another said during the public comment period, and another suggested\nimmediately after the public comment period and prior to finalizing the Plans. All who\ncommented agreed that TRT discussion and review of the NMFS plan would have been useful to\nassist with successful implementation of the plans.\nE2 How to Improve the Process\nThe survey asked respondents for suggestions on how to improve the process. One of the\nimprovements suggested by many respondents of the TRT negotiation processes was to ensure\nthat in the future there is enough time to complete the work and analyses. There were also\nseveral suggestions about the quantity and quality of data and how to handle data in future\nprocesses. Several respondents suggested not having multi-party negotiations if the data wasn't\nbetter. Respondents commented that the process could be improved by having smaller groups or\nfewer meetings over a longer time frame.\nOther respondents suggested that more organization in the initial phases of the process would\nimprove the potential for creative problem solving and consensus. Several respondents thought\nthere should be a consistent messages from NMFS to follow MMPA mandates for publishing\nplans and convening teams. Others suggested increased commitment of respondents in the\nprocess. Two respondents suggested more preparation and involvement in the whole process\nfrom all offices within NMFS including legal counsel, fisheries managers and decision-makers.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 16","E3. Advice for Future Participants and Facilitators in Multi-Party\nNegotiation Processes\nhen asked what advice participants would offer negotiators who participate in future\nW\nnegotiation processes, several respondents stressed the importance of coming prepared to\nthe meetings, with as much knowledge of the data, issues and sides, as possible. Several\nrespondents suggested that participants prepare themselves better by analyzing the role of NMFS\nand determine NMFS follow-through. Some thought that NMFS needed to be more\nstraightforward. Others noted that respondents need to come to negotiations with an open mind,\nwith a willingness to see others' perspectives and a willingness to compromise.\nIn response to what advice participants would offer facilitators of future TRT processes,\nrespondents offered the following comments: At least two respondents thought that NMFS\nshould not dismiss original suggestions on process structure and format. Others suggested that\nmore opportunity for small group discussions involving more than one interest group would\nmove things forward. Several respondents suggested that facilitators devise new ways to present\nthe data and determine its validity.\nIV. Discussion\nIn our experience participants value the process and feel that it is fair when*:\nParties have a compelling reason to participate in the process;\nAll parties with a significant interest in the issues are involved in the process;\nThe parties who are affected or interested participate voluntarily;\nThe parties have input into the design of the consensus process;\nThe processes is flexible;\nThe parties have equal access to data generation and information and have the\nopportunity to participate effectively throughout the process:\nThe diverse interests are accepted and respected;\nThe parties are accountable to their constituencies and the process;\nThe time limits and deadlines are realistic;\nThere is serious commitment by all parties that any agreement will be implemented and\nmonitored.\nThe NMFS Take Team Reduction negotiation process differed from the ideal multi-party\nnegotiation process in several ways. First, the process was mandated by federal law. While\nparties did participate voluntarily, the NMFS was required by law to convene the TRTs. Parties\nmay have felt they had few options but to participate.\n(See Gray, B. 1989, Collaborating Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems, Winer, Michael and\nKaren Ray, Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining and Enjoying the Journey, SPIDR, 1997, Best Practices\nfor Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement Seeking Processes, Canadian National\nRoundtable on the Environment and the Economy, Task Force on Consensus Decision Making, Guiding Principles\nof the Consensus Process.\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 17","Second, the parties did not have any significant input into the design of the process. In most\nmulti-party negotiation processes the neutral conducts a convening assessment before starting\nany process. The neutral, in most cases, is not an agency staff person. In interviews with the\nparties the neutral can discover what kind of issues parties would like to discuss, who should be\ninvolved, and if, indeed a collaborative process is appropriate. Without this type of convening it\nis difficult to design a process that meets the parties' needs and interests.\nThird, parties did not have equal understanding of or access to data. A related fact is that all\nparties did not accept the data used to determine that the stocks were strategic nor did they accept\nthe methodology to determine by-catch.\nFourth, the timelines mandated by the MMPA hampered serious learning and negotiation.\nNegotiations take time to develop trust, to learn how the other parties view the issues and the\nsolutions and to develop and decide on options. The time period hindered several groups from\ndeveloping good negotiation relationships and certainly did not allow them enough time to fully\nexplore options. In addition, some of the participants in the Team negotiations had prior\nexperience with one another in other forums. This history was an asset in some cases and posed\nproblems in others.\nFinally, and most importantly, a bias was built into this evaluation survey. By the time we\nsurveyed the TRT participants they already knew the fate of their groups' agreements. They\nknew if the plans were being implemented as designed or if without an agreement their\nrecommendations and ideas were finding their way into the final plans. Participants felt that they\nhad devoted a lot of time and energy to difficult discussions that were not reflected in either the\nplans or the implementation. In comparison, in an evaluation of another consensus based\nrulemaking process, 62% of the participants felt the final rule reflected the results of their\nnegotiations, while 17% of the conventional rulemaking participants felt that the final rule\nreflected their input. Kerwin, C. and Laura Langbein, 1995, An Evaluation of Negotiated\nRulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency.)\nThere are several improvements suggested by respondents' comments, survey analysis and\nconversations with the facilitators. The first of these improvements concerns data. The lack of\ndata and confidence in the data was clearly a stumbling block for many of the participants.\nAgreement on which data to use and how data are generated is critical to the parties' opinions\nabout the legitimacy of the process. It is important to distinguish the types of data that are of\nconcern with respect to the involvement of stakeholders in obtaining or reviewing data. Marine\nMammal Incidental take data need to be provided in a timely fashion and need to be organized so\nthat participants can see whether there are any statistically significant factors. The TRTs where\nboth the NMFS statisticians and several Team members were integrally involved in massaging\ndata and proposing correlations to review were more successful.\nA second type of data is marine mammal population abundance and potential biological removal\n(PBR) numbers. These data are generated in a separate process before the decision to convene\nthe TRTs is made. In some cases credibility problems existed walking into the negotiations. On\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 18","some teams even NMFS' staff and researchers earnest attempts to provide the rationale for the\nPBR was not accepted by some TRT members. Integrating representative parties into\ndevelopment of PBR calculations has appeared to alleviate mistrust on some TRTs.\nThe process could spend more time assessing the adequacy of the data and encouraging\nparticipants to share data. Also, if participants think the data are inadequate or biased then the\nTRT might agree to not try and achieve consensus. Instead they might develop bycatch\nreduction options targeted at different scenarios, or develop another process SO that expectations\nare adjusted appropriately.\nA second improvement could be to increase the time allowed for the negotiation processes. Six\nmonths time was clearly not appropriate for some Teams especially when working with\nvolunteer participants. More time could be found by conducting a few workshops prior to when\nthe TRT negotiation is formally started. The purpose of the workshops could be to focus on data\njustification for the strategies, stock calculations and the PBR numbers. In these workshops\nexperts from different disciplines could informally interact with TRT participants and hopefully\nnarrow the mistrust of the data up front and provide an opportunity to discuss perceived or real\ngaps or problems with the data. This model has been successfully used by RESOLVE in other\nresource management negotiations.\nFinally, the composition of each team and the authority of the NMFS staff at the negotiation\ntable need to be clarified. NMFS staff role at the table was not the same on all five Teams, and\nsometimes the roles of NMFS staff changed over the course of the six-month negotiation on a\nTeam. NMFS needs to develop a policy regarding who sits at the table, their role, and authority\nto speak on behalf of the agency. If the NMFS representative at the table does not represent the\nNMFS Senior Management Team, NMFS can't expect other TRT participants to speak on behalf\nof their organization, association or agency. A significant amount of frustration with the process\noccurred after the conclusion of the negotiations when participants perceived that their\nrecommendations were not being acted upon or implemented. Many agencies conduct training in\nnegotiation and collaborative decision making for agency negotiators and agency decisionmakers\nbefore the agency participates in collaborative processes. This helps the agency learn about its\nrole and what staff can do to participate effectively. It is particularly important to be clear about\nroles and expectations if the agency negotiators are not the same as the agency decisionmakers.\nHowever, it is important to note that NMFS staff at the table struggled with their role at the table\nand should be acknowledged for their efforts to address their role in a straight forward and honest\nmanner.\nV. Conclusion\nhis evaluation demonstrates the benefits and challenges of involving stakeholders in\nT\ncollaborative processes on highly controversial public policy issues. The survey shows that\nrespondents thought the processes were fair and effective when they had enough time to\nnegotiate, when they felt heard, when their opinions were incorporated into the final plans, and\nwhen there was enough data to make good decisions. However, if the negotiation process is\ncompromised by ongoing political pressures, inconsistent guidance from federal agency\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp. 19","decisionmakers, and inadequate timelines and data the consensus building process can end up\ntaking longer than the traditional rulemaking processes. Furthermore, participants can quickly\nlose faith in government decisionmakers if participation is not carefully thought out and followed\nthrough.\nList of Appendices\nAppendix 1. Survey Results from Five Take Reduction Team Process Evaluations\nAppendix 2. Survey Instrument\nAppendix 3. Survey Respondents' Comments\nNational Marine Fisheries Take Reduction Team Process Evaluation ©RESOLVE 1999\npp.20","Appendix 1:\nSurvey Results\nFrom Five\nTake Reduction Team\nProcess Evaluations","Total Responses\n13\n40\n48\n13\n13\n49\n44\n20\n52\n19\n61\n41\n52\n10\n6\n3\n2\n0\n3\n6\nPacific Offshore Cetaceans\n6\n2\n0\n4\n0\n4\n1\n0\n0\n6\n5\n1\n0\n5\n1\n6\n0\n4\n2\n5\n0\nMid Atlantic\n16\n10\n14\n14\n10\n18\n15\n10\n17\n2\n2\n2\n4\n0\n4\n8\n0\n0\n0\n7\n1\nGulf of Maine\nSurvey Results of Five TRT Negotiation Process Evaluations\n11\n11\n3\n7\n7\n1\n7\n2\n1\n2\n7\n3\n0\n0\n9\n2\n1\n7\n4\n5\nAtlantic Offshore Cetaceans\n11\n11\n11\n0\n2\n8\n0\n6\n5\n7\n4\n0\n0\n8\n2\n2\n9\n9\n2\nAtlantic Large Whale TRT\n13\n17\n19\n15\n16\n14\n11\n17\n11\n2\n5\n2\n2\n6\n0\n1\n1\n7\n4\n0\n2\nall\nmy sector only\n1-2 other sectors\nMost of the time\nNone of the time\nComments\nYes\nNo\nIf not, please explain\nYes\nNo\nComments\nYes\nNo\nComments\nYes\nNo\nComments\n3 or more other sectors\nYes\nNo\nIf not, explain why not\n1-2 meetings\nmore than 1/2 meetings\nAll the time\nIII.6. Did you have sufficient data in your TRT process to support negotiation?\nIII.3. During TRT mtgs were you given an opportunity to express your views?\nIII.5. During the meetings, did you feel your opinions were taken seriously\nResponse\nIII.4. During TRT meetings, were others able to present their views?\nIII.1. Did the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nIII.7. Did you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\nII.2. Prior to the first meeting did you know other TRT members?\nIII.2. How many of the TRT meetings did you participate in?\nII.2.a. I knew some of the TRT members:\nII.2.b. I did not know any TRT members.\nQuestion\nand incorporated into the plan?\nIII. During the Negotiations\nAppendix 1\nOf those, / knew:\nSurvey #\nCategory","Total Responses\n43\n22\n17\n19\n33\n19\n12\n26\n12\n10\n64\n56\n60\n56\n43\n19\n7\n9\n3\n2\n9\n3\n7\n1\n1\n1\nPacific Offshore Cetaceans\n3\n3\n2\n0\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n0\n2\n1\n1\n0\n0\n6\n0\n6\n0\n6\n0\n6\n0\n5\n0\n1\nMid Atlantic\n12\n10\n17\n13\n15\n14\n6\n7\n2\n3\n5\n0\n3\n3\n8\n2\n3\n0\n2\n0\n1\n4\n1\n2\n8\n8\nGulf of Maine\nSurvey Results of Five TRT Negotiation Process Evaluations\n11\n11\n11\n11\n11\n0\n5\n1\n5\n5\n3\n0\n3\n1\n5\n2\n2\n0\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n9\n2\nAtlantic Offshore Cetaceans\n11\n10\n10\n7\n4\n0\n3\n4\n5\n4\n0\n2\n2\n4\n3\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n1\n9\n2\n8\n3\nAtlantic Large Whale TRT\n10\n10\n19\n16\n18\n16\n13\n9\n3\n1\n6\n6\n0\n3\n3\n7\n4\n4\n3\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n3\n6\nYes\nNo\n1-2 negotiations\n3-4 negotiations\nMore than 5 negotiations\n(1) TRT\n(2) TRT'S\n(3) TRT'S\n(4) TRT'S\nEnvironmental/Conservation\nAcademic/Scientific Comm.\nState\nFederal\nOther\nNo\nYes\nNo\nYes\nNo\nYes\nInterstate Fishery Mgmt. Coun.\nYes\nNo\nYes\nNo\nFishing Industry\nResponse\nI. Some Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team\nI.1.a. Have you had previous involvement in multi-party negotiations?\nII.1. Were you contacted by mediator/facilitator prior to first meeting?\nII.1.d. How the negotiation process would be structured?\nI.1b. # of previous multi-party negotiations involved in?\nI.2. How many previous TRT's have you participated in?\nII. Some Questions About Your Experience\nIf yes, did you have enough information about:\nII.1.c. Types of issues to be discussed?\nQuestion\nII.1.a Your role in the process?\nII.1.b. Purpose of the process?\nI.3. Sector Representation\nAppendix 1\nCategory\nSurvey #","Total Responses\n50\n57\n37\n25\n11\n12\n63\n53\n55\n58\n58\n9\n6\n6\n0\n8\n6\n6\n2\nPacific Offshore Cetaceans\n3\n2\n4\n1\n5\n1\n0\n0\n2\n6\n0\n6\n0\n5\n1\n3\n3\n5\n0\nMid Atlantic\n15\n17\n13\n18\n16\n17\n17\n18\n2\n1\n5\n4\n1\n3\n0\n2\n1\n1\n0\nGulf of Maine\nSurvey Results of Five TRT Negotiation Process Evaluations\n10\n9\n1\n8\n2\n8\n2\n2\n1\n1\n0\n9\n0\n9\n1\n9\n1\n9\n1\nAtlantic Offshore Cetaceans\n10\n10\n10\n11\n8\n2\n1\n7\n4\n0\n1\n2\n0\n8\n2\n8\n1\n1\n0\nAtlantic Large Whale TRT\n15\n18\n13\n18\n14\n16\n19\n16\n2\n1\n4\n5\n3\n4\n0\n4\n2\n0\n1\nNo\nNo\nComments\nNo\n2 more months\n3 more months\nSatisfactory\nNot Satisfactory\nSatisfactory\nNot Satisfactory\nSatisfactory\nNot Satisfactory\nSatisfactory\nNot Satisfactory\nSatisfactory\nNot Satisfactory\nComments\nComments\nmore time?\nYes\nYes\nYes\nResponse\nIII. 10. Were the following items satisfactory, or not satisfactory?\nIII.11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate\nIII.9. Was there adequate time for the overall negotiations?\na. Informal negotiations between parties with different views?\nIII.8. During the Mtgs. was there adequate time for:\nb. Caucuses among parties with similar views?\nIf not, how much time would be preferred?\nQuestion\nin future negotiation processes?\na. Advance notice of meetings\nC. Advance packet materials\ne. Meeting summaries\nd. Length of meetings\nAppendix 1\nb. Meeting locations\nSurvey #\nCategory","Total Responses\n45\n13\n23\n35\n34\n22\n44\n49\n15\n41\n20\n7\n2\n1\nPacific Offshore Cetaceans\n5\n0\n4\n0\n6\n0\n6\n0\n0\n3\n2\n0\n1\n2\nMid Atlantic\n13\n10\n10\n14\n13\n11\n5\n5\n7\n1\n5\n0\n7\n0\nGulf of Maine\nSurvey Results of Five TRT Negotiation Process Evaluations\n6\n2\n6\n4\n8\n2\n6\n3\n7\n4\n0\n7\n4\n0\nAtlantic Offshore Cetaceans\n7\n2\n5\n6\n6\n2\n7\n2\n6\n4\n1\n6\n2\n2\nAtlantic Large Whale TRT\n14\n15\n12\n11\n17\n14\n4\n3\n6\n1\n2\n0\n5\n0\nYes\nNo\nPlease explain:\nYes, why?\nNo, why not?\nComments\nComments\nYes\nNo\nIf not, what kind of public involvement process would you suggest?\nYes\nNo\nComments\nComments\nExcellent\nPoor\nExcellent\nPoor\nGood\nGood\nIII.17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource\nResponse\nIII. 18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation\nIII.13. At the end of the last mtg. were you satisfied with the results?\nIII. 14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\nIII. 16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT Mtg. during the time\nIII.15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?\nIV.1. Please rate the mediator on the following characteristics:\nIII.12. Did you feel that the TRT Negotiation process was fair?\nthe NMFS Proposed Mgmt. Plan is out for public comment?\nIV. Questions About the TRT Mediator\nQuestion\nb.1. Communication during meeting\nmgmt. decision making?\nprocess for the future?\nAppendix 1\na. Approachability\nSurvey #\nCategory","Total Responses\n39.5\n22.5\n35\n24\n40\n21\n30\n29\n25\n29\n43\n15\n4\n26\n4\n35\n36\n5\n7\n21\n3\n6\n3\nPacific Offshore Cetaceans\n3.5\n2.5\n4\n1\n1\n4\n2\n0\n1\n3\n1\n3\n1\n1\n0\n4\n2\n0\n3\n3\n4\n2\n0\nMid Atlantic\n10\n7\n10\n10\n13\n1\n9\n8\n10\n1\n6\n2\n8\n7\n3\n8\n0\n3\n2\n8\n9\n7\n0\nGulf of Maine\nSurvey Results of Five TRT Negotiation Process Evaluations\n7\n3\n1\n7\n4\n0\n8\n3\n0\n5\n6\n0\n8\n3\n0\n7\n4\n0\n4\n6\n7\n4\n0\nAtlantic Offshore Cetaceans\n6\n3\n1\n5\n3\n3\n4\n7\n0\n3\n5\n1\n6\n3\n2\n7\n0\n3\n2\n7\n5\n5\n1\nAtlantic Large Whale TRT\n11\n15\n10\n7\n10\n12\n0\n12\n4\n0\n7\n2\n6\n2\n11\n6\n1\n6\n1\n9\n9\n3\n2\nExcellent\nPoor\nExcellent\nPoor\nExcellent\nGood\nPoor\nExcellent\nPoor\nExcellent\nPoor\nExcellent\nGood\nPoor\nExcellent\nExcellent\nPoor\nGood\nGood\nGood\nGood\nComments\nComments\nGood\nGood\nIV.3. What advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\nResponse\nIV.2. Overall how would you rate the mediator's performance?\nd. Ability to move meeting process forward\nb.2. Communication in between meetings\nQuestion\nh. Understanding of the issues\ne. Ability to break impasse\nf. Ability to capture ideas\nAppendix 1\ng. Fair with all parties\nC. Responsiveness\nSurvey #\nCategory","Appendix 2:\nSurvey Instrument","Appendix 2\nPlease return by September 14, 1998\nto Detra Stoddard, RESOLVE\n1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 275\nWashington, D.C. 20015\nProcess Evaluation Survey\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team Negotiation\nSome Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team\nI.\n1.a.) Prior to participating in the Take Reduction (TRT) Negotiations, had you ever\nbeen involved in other negotiation processes involving a large group of interested\nparties?\nYes\nNo\n1.b.) If yes, please indicate how many by placing a check in the appropriate box\n1-2 other negotiations\n3-4\nMore than 5\n2. How many TRT negotiations did you participate in?\n1 TRT;\n2 TRTs;\n3 TRTs;\n4 TRTs","3. I represented the following sector at the TRT negotiation table:\nAcademic/Scientific Community\nFishing industry (including processors)\nEnvironmental/Conservation\nState\nFederal\nInterstate Fishery Management Council\nOther; please list\nNow Some Questions About Your Experience\nII.\nBefore the Negotiations Started\n1. Prior to the first meeting, were you contacted by the mediator/facilitator?\nYes\nNo\nIf yes, did you have enough information about:\nYes\nNo\na. Your role in the process?\nb. Purpose of the process?\nC. Types of issues to be discussed?\nd. How the negotiation process would be structured?","2. Prior to the first meeting, did you know other TRT members? (answer a. or b.)\na)\nI knew some of the TRT members.\nOf those TRT members I knew, I knew members representing\nmy sector only\n1-2 other sectors\n3 or more other sectors\nb)\nI did not know any of the TRT members.\nIII. During The Negotiations\n1. Did you think the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nYes\nNo\nIf not, please explain why not\n2. How many meetings of the TRT did you participate in?\nonly 1-2 meetings\nmore than 1/2 meetings\nall","3. During the TRT meetings were you given an opportunity to express your views?\nAll the time\nMost of the time\nNone of the time\nComments:\n4.) During the meetings, were others able to present their views?\nYes\nNo\nIf not, please explain\n5.) During the meetings did you feel that your opinions were taken seriously and\nincorporated into the recommended plan?\nYes\nNo\nComments:","6.\nIn complex marine management issues, not all data are available. Did you have\nsufficient data in your TRT process to support the negotiation?\nYes\nNo\nComments:\n7. Did you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\nYes\nNo\nComments:\n8. During the meetings was there adequate time for\nYes\nNo\na. Informal negotiations between parties with different views?\nb. Caucuses among parties with similar views?\nComments:","9. Was there adequate time for the overall negotiations?\nYes\nNo\nIf not, how much time would be preferred?\n2 more months\n3 more months\nmore time?\n10. Were the following items satisfactory, or not satisfactory?\nNot\nSatisfactory\nSatisfactory\na. Advance notice of meetings\nb. Meeting locations\nC. Advance packet materials\nd. Length of meetings\ne. Meeting summaries\nComments:\n11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate in future negotiation\nprocesses?","12. Did you feel that the TRT negotiation process was fair?\nYes\nNo\nPlease explain:\n13. At the end of the last meeting, were you satisfied with the results or outcome of\nthe negotiation?\nYes\nWhy?\nNo\nWhy not?\n14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\n15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?","16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT meeting during the time the NMFS\nProposed Management Plan is out for public comment?\nYes\nNo\nIf not, what kind of public involvement process would you suggest?\n17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource management\ndecision making?\nYes\nNo\nComments:\n18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation process for the\nfuture?\nComments:","IV. Now Comments About the TRT Mediator\n1. Please rate the mediator on the following characteristics:\nExcellent\nGood\nPoor\na. Approachability\nb. Communication\nduring meeting\nin between meetings\nC. Responsiveness to my concerns\nd. Ability to move meeting process forward\ne. Ability to break impasse\nf. Ability to capture ideas suggested by the TRT\ng. Fair with all parties\nh. Understanding of the issues\nOverall how would you rate the mediator's performance?\n2.\nExcellent\nGood\nPoor\nComments:\nWhat advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\n3.","Information About Yourself (optional)\nV.\nIf you are willing to identify yourself, please indicate your\n1.\nName:\n(Please print clearly)\nOrganization:\n2. Are you willing to be interviewed by telephone about the TRT process?\nIf yes, please list your telephone number and dates that you are not available in\nSeptember.\nTelephone number (\n)\n(day or evening)\ncircle one\nDates I am not available in September to talk\nWould you prefer to be interviewed by someone other than Abby Arnold?\n3.\nYes\nNo\nThank you for filling out this survey!","Appendix 3:\nSurvey Respondents'\nComments","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Large Whale TRT\nPlease return by September 14, 1998\nto Detra Stoddard, RESOLVE\n1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 275\nWashington, D.C. 20015\nProcess Evaluation Survey\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team Negotiation\nI.\nSome Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team - (no comment\nsections)\nII.\nBefore the Negotiations Started - (no comment sections)\nIII.\nDuring The Negotiations\n1. Did you think the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nYes: (no comments)\nNo:\nMembers from the scientific community were much less biased - in general- than the Harbor Porpoise TRT.\nNot a balance of interested and affected parties.\n3. During the TRT meetings were you given an opportunity to express your views?\nComments:\nThere were too many people in the plenary sessions to really explore an idea in depth. (2)\nMore time could have been expended on seeking out opinions throughout the process. I believe there were\nmany surprises when it came time to determine recommendations and consensus on actions.\n4. During the meetings, were others able to present their views?\nIf not, please explain:\nThere were too many people trying to address too complex an issue in too little time.\nShark fishermen didn't/wouldn't come.\nOnly individuals who raised their hands were recognized; other views were not sought after.\nThe large size of the group made it difficult and fears about taping. Some were nervous by the fact that certain\nmembers of the public were listening.\n5. During the meetings did you feel that your opinions were taken seriously and incorporated\ninto the recommended plan?\nYes:\nTaken seriously, yes; incorporated into the plan, not always/occasionally.\nNo:\nWe did not reach consensus","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Large Whale TRT\nIn complex marine management issues, not all data are available. Did you have sufficient\n6.\ndata in your TRT process to support the negotiation?\nYes:\nSufficient data is almost never available for natural resource management decisions, but I think we had as much\ndata as we could reasonably expect. (2)\nCenter staff was a superb resource for the Team.\nNo:\nSufficient data does not exist. (2)\nThere are big gaps in our understanding of where whales occur and why and how they become entangled.\nIn some cases the data may not have existed- in other cases, however, the data was known, but not organized or\npresented to the TRT members in either a timely or particularly useful way. This situation reflected badly on\nNMFS.\nNo, we could use more data on the nature of entanglements and the origin of the gear.\nNeeded data were usually provided at the next meeting.\nNMFS staff worked diligently to provide analysis of available data and they should be credited - however, other\ndata sets were nonexistent or poorly documented; for example, historic whale entanglement data were not well\ndocumented to ascertain year types. Also for some fisheries the data were weak or dated - for example gillnet\neffort data were 3 years old and the industry insisted they were inadequate given the reductions in effort due to\ngroundfish regulations. Also, the lobster trap fishing effort is not sufficiently detailed regarding locations.\nFinally, the whale distribution data were skewed to locations of WW boats - especially for Right whales.\nThe time lag for processing of data within NMFS is unacceptable.\nDid you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\n7.\nYes:\nThe available data were well presented. NMFS staff in particular helped make whale sightings data\nunderstandable.\nIn most cases, yes. In many cases, the interpretations of the data were quite varied.\nNo:\nSpecifically, the PBR numbers. There was no opportunity to debate the derivation of these numbers.\n10. Were the following items satisfactory, or not satisfactory?\nComments:\nwish we had covered the early material more quickly to provide for more meetings.\nI\nThe advance materials could have been much better organized for TRT members.\nThe summaries were often quite delayed, and the final approval and discussions were difficult after the passage\nof long periods of time.\n11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate in future negotiation processes?\nComments:\nDefine process and issues better for participation before the process formally begins. (2)\nSome people at the meetings were able to make decisions on the spot, while others had to consult with superiors\nor constituents first. Everyone should understand which situation people are in and not expect instant decisions\nfrom people who cannot make them.\nDo your homework; work towards recommendations sooner in the schedule, allowing more time for\ncompromise and negotiation. I felt we tackled many difficult issues in the end and then walked away with\nmany feeling somewhat disillusioned with the experience.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Large Whale TRT\nDo not allow the process to be driven by a court case and do not engage in sequential phone conversations in an\nattempt to reach consensus.\nIf you are not willing to negotiate, then don't participate. If interest groups can't participate for legitimate\nreasons (e.g. meetings during prime fishing season) then find ways to accommodate. (E.g., hold shark-fishing\nsession(s) in southeast when fishermen are not fishing.\nPerhaps try to task fact finders to gather data, prior to 1st meeting, and keep a wary eye for diminishing returns\nin data gathering during process.\nBeware of six-month deadlines.\nGo to the source of the problem - shipping lanes.\nBe open to other's views and attempt to understand their perspective on the issues.\nThe TRT showed that in some cases, fishermen are better off outside the process, so this does not color other\nnegotiations.\n12. Did you feel that the TRT negotiation process was fair?\nYes:\nAs much as it could be given the outside pressures and the political press once the plan was proposed.\nI feel that the mediator did a very good job of maintaining a fair atmosphere.\nReasonable balance of interests and perspectives.\nNo:\nOut-numbered by those who represented environmental interests. (2)\nIndividuals who are interested in solutions to problems are at a disadvantage relative to individuals who take\nextreme positions in order to negotiate the outcome they prefer.\nSome folk's suggestions were written down, followed up on, and incorporated, while others were not.\nThere was not an understanding of how the fishing industry works - i.e., requirements of gear by nature and\nminimum human needs.\nNot enough time at the end, some fishermen representatives seemed burned out by TRT's and seemed to say: \"I\nwon't agree anymore to shutting myself down or restricting myself. Let NMFS and the courts do it.\"\n13. At the end of the last meeting, were you satisfied with the results or outcome of the\nnegotiation?\nYes, Why?\nI\nfelt there were sound recommendations to address the issues - despite lack of consensus.\nBest available outcome.\nNo, Why not?\nThe group didn't have time to come to consensus on some points. (5)\nThere were some negative personal dynamics that I didn't know how to mitigate. (2)\nWe didn't have enough information to make good decisions.\nNot reflective of reality.\nBecause we had not reached consensus.\nOne principal group refused to negotiate throughout-denying that they were part of the problem and solution -\nand relying on political strengths to get their way.\nConsensus was not reached and this spawned spin-off meetings that were not properly run - the so-called\nstate/industry TRT.\nNo, shipping lanes are not regulated to my satisfaction.\n14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\nBringing together of varied stakeholders- insights into differing viewpoints regarding the problems associated\nwith take reduction. (6)","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Large Whale TRT\nAn opportunity for stakeholders to hash through data and understand at least some points of \"opponents\" views.\n(2)\nHaving a neutral facilitator was good, but there were times when we needed active mediation.\nWe all kept a sense of humor and laughed during the difficult times.\nClearer understanding of the issues and the perspectives of each interest group.\nContact with the other members.\nTo see people from different types of industry sacrificing part of their business to protect the whale.\n15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?\nTrying to agree on measures that would ease a suspected problem (whale entanglements) without hindering\nfisherman's ability to function, affecting one's livelihood. (2)\nMaking decisions on data that I thought was insufficient. (2)\nThe group was too large for personal interactions that would have helped in some problem areas. (2)\nPersonalities\nThe differences between the viewpoints of some sectors were so great that a short process couldn't possibly\nachieve consensus.\nTrying to establish where members stood on the proposed recommendations as the process neared the end and if\nthere could be agreement or compromise to address the TRT goals.\nThe personal attacks and lies that occurred once the process broke down.\nThe Massachusetts lawsuit; knowledge that large ships had greater impacts on right whales than fishing, yet no\none could guarantee that shipping industry would do its part to reduce interactions.\nFor me, it was the industry's expectation that I ally myself with their positions.\nUncertainties as to how well the views of the \"Fishing Community\" were represented.\nTrying to get conservation people to understand how the fishing industry works.\n16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT meeting during the time the NMFS Proposed\nManagement Plan is out for public comment?\nYes:\nIt would be useful for different sectors to be able to get together again, but I wouldn't expect all differences to\nbe resolved.\nNo: If not, what kind of public involvement process would you suggest?\nHold a TRT meeting after receipt and summarization of public comments. (4)\nThe time for another TRT meeting would be after the report is submitted to but before public comment - this\nwould provide the team a chance to provide input on the team's recommendations and the service's proposed\naction.\n17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource management decision\nmaking?\nYes\nDepends on how one defines \"effective,\" I believe it does offer the opportunity for all stakeholders to have input\nand knowledge of the process. (2)\nYes, it is still the best process if NMFS could get the implementation right.\nIt's worth the try. (2)\nFrom my perspective it is the only way to reach an objectively fair resolution to complex problems.\nDepends on issues involved. Process must be well supported; halfway effort will fail.\nI am sure it gave the decision-makers a broader perspective.\nNo\nIf one or more interest group refuses to negotiate, the group cannot reach consensus. It is also hard to find\nconsensus when one group won't come to the meetings.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Large Whale TRT\nIt fell apart in this case because NMFS dropped the ball (in my opinion) which resulted in political chaos.\n18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation process for the future?\nComments:\nEnsure that there is sufficient time to complete the work and analyses, either by having a smaller group or fewer\nmeetings for longer periods of time. (4)\nWith more organization of early phases of the process (more information on process, issues, roles), the\nnegotiation phase could be reached earlier in the schedule and possibly allow for more potential for creative\nproblem solving and consensus. (3)\nDo not try and reach consensus after everyone has left the table.\nMake sure that participants are willing to participate in good faith. It would also be helpful if fisheries\nparticipants recognized that they were part of the problem - for a good part of at least two meetings, fishing\ninterests were in a state of denial - \"Not us, we don't take whales.\"\nMore participation from the fishing industry.\nThe person who is seeking solutions to the problems is at a distinct disadvantage in a \"negotiation process.\"\nThere needs to be some recognition that there are those who are being paid to be at the meetings, who will not\nbe affected in any way by regulations, and whose organizations benefit from conflict.\nHigh level of support for working commercial/fisherman.\nMore data on interactions from ships and military vessels, also pollution.\nBe sure NMFS is willing to defer to the team rather than the Council and other parts of NMFS.\nRemember that people come first, not mammals.\nIV. Now Comments About the TRT Mediator\n2. Overall how would you rate the mediator's performance?\nShe ran out of time.\nThis was a complex issue and the mediator worked very hard to understand the issues; she and the staff were\nvery productive before and after meetings.\nThe facilitator wasn't able to control a very difficult group of people.\nI felt that the meetings were moderated, but not facilitated.\nVery good overall. I believe that in some cases the mediator should have pressed forward toward the\ninegotiation/recommendation process sooner.\nIt is hard to separate the mediator's performance from the outcome-, which was unsatisfactory due to problems\nbeyond the mediator's control.\n3.\nWhat advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\nTalk with each participant ahead of time.\nKnow all sides of the issue.\nOrganize NMFS presentation of data.\nIf the group is as large as this one was, plan for more caucuses and small group discussions to move things\nahead; involving more than one interest group.\nUse state agency representatives more; many are experienced at resolving complex issues. They know their\ncoastal fisheries well.\nEstablish upfront that you will be controlling this process; you don't want us to love you - just respect you.\nIf court involvement is on going, check the flexibility of deadlines. Maybe make reports to the court.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nPlease return by September 14, 1998\nto Detra Stoddard, RESOLVE\n1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 275\nWashington, D.C. 20015\nProcess Evaluation Survey\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team Negotiation\nI.\nSome Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team (no comment\nsections)\nII.\nBefore the Negotiations Started (no comment sections)\nIII.\nDuring The Negotiations\n1. Did you think the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nYes:\n(No comments)\nNo:\nI felt there was insufficient representation by the environmental/conservation community.\nAnimal activist representatives should not have a veto on actual participants in a fishery attempting to resolve\ntheir MM problems within a reasonable and practical application of relevant laws.\nNMFS, environmentalists, and longliners certainly had a pre-approved agenda and goal.\nThe problem with the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean TRT, was that too many different commercial fleets were\nbrought into a process simultaneously and they should have been separated into two distinct groups to work\nwith the NMFS and outside interests to address each fleet's problems.\n3. During the TRT meetings were you given an opportunity to express your views?\nComments:\nI felt the facilitator was biased toward the industry and did not uphold the ground rules of the negotiation.\nFurthermore, she didn't listen to the concerns of all of the parties.\nThe facilitator did an excellent job of allowing equal opportunity to express your views in a volatile situation.\nThe outcome was predetermined so my point of view, when allowed to be presented, was completely ignored.\n4. During the meetings, were others able to present their views?\nYes:\nIn the first meeting a representative from the North Atlantic Review Team stated that calculations - such as\nPBR's, etc. could not be discussed- this ended discussion of one of the primary issues.\nThe facilitator was great at keeping things open and allowing everyone to voice their opinion.\nNo: (No comments)","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans TRT\n5. During the meetings, did you feel that your opinions were taken seriously and incorporated\ninto the recommended plan?\nYes: (No comments)\nNo:\nI cautioned about developing a plan that required making changes to fishery management practices. Almost 2\nyears later the plan has not been implemented because it is viewed as too complicated by NMFS.\nAnimal activists outright vetoed a few practical and reasonable alternatives.\nThe goal of this TRT was not to protect mammals; it was to strengthen a certain industry group's position with\nthe \"hill\", NMFS, and the environmental community.\n6.\nIn complex marine management issues, not all data are available. Did you have sufficient\ndata in your TRT process to support the negotiation?\nYes: (No comments)\nNo:\nThe Mid-Atlantic TRT had much better data and better staff support.\nLongline data were sparse and outdated; population information a bit more shaky than for marine coastal\nspecies. No data at that time on travel data.\nNMFS bycatch data is often a year out of date, and in this instance there was insufficient data from longline\nfishery to really develop effective bycatch reduction measures.\nExample - 3 different sets of \"Observer\" data for 1 fishery were never reconciled. Marine mammal takes never\ndiscussed during meetings were added for another fishery in FINAL draft.\nMost importantly was to determine PBR levels, which are formulated using stock assessments. The stock\nassessments for marine mammals were conducted at the wrong time of year and outdated. A full,\ncomprehensive assessment needs to be conducted. Our livelihoods are at stake and we are using flawed and\nincomprehensive data - very frustrating.\nPlenty of data but it was poorly prepared and when convenient it was ignored - the longliners were the dirtiest\nfishery at the table, yet they left the table unscathed.\nThe time lag for processing data within NMFS is unacceptable.\n7. Did you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\nYes:\nI obtained it myself; it was not part of the data per se.\nNMFS science staff are always helpful.\nNo:\nVery little NMFS assistance in this manner. We were lucky to have our own scientific consultant even though\nhe had major problems acquiring NMFS data.\nNot all the time, certain individuals think they are better than everyone else is because only they understand the\nnonsense they prepare.\n8. During the meetings was there adequate time for informal negotiations and caucuses among\nparties.\nComments:\nLittle dialogue outside of meetings between fishermen and conservationists, except pair trawl fisherman who\nsought our sympathy in their battle with the longliners.\nOf course the environmentalists could caucus anytime but others did not get treated the same way.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans TRT\n10. Were the following items satisfactory, or not satisfactory (advance notice of meetings,\nmeeting location, advance materials, meeting summaries, etc.?\nComments:\nHotels good; central location - but meetings in Boston, Warwick tend to encourage participants to separate into\ninterest groups and dine/drink separately, so informal negotiation does not happen.\nAs long as drafts were circulated and revised to reflect comments - it worked ok, but many times it required a\nprolonged back and forth process.\nFinal summary of strategies was flawed which caused further phone conversations to sign off on changes that\nimpacted everyone. This caused some minor breakdown in strategies and I believe the groups that felt not all\ntheir conditions were met orchestrated it.\nThe facilitator did a good job of organizing, but NMFS made sure that a true negotiation was impossible.\nAdvance materials sometimes came at the last minute.\nDowntown Boston traffic is unbearable.\n11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate in future negotiation processes?\nComments:\nNMFS needs to have better data available.\nRemote meetings, be wary of NMFS commitment to follow through.\nTake time to work with one another outside of the formal process. Do not wait until the end to address the\ntough issues.\nBe honest, try to see the problems from other perspectives and be willing to compromise.\nTake original formats and structure suggestions more seriously. Hook and line fisheries should not have been\ndirectly included with driffnet and pair trawl then when pair trawl was banned they should not have been\nallowed at the table.\nThat the agency already (before) has an agenda and is just going through the formalities. Thus, minimizing the\nbias and demand on time and complete data prior to negotiations.\nDo not trust anyone from NMFS, the environmentalists and/or the academic side.\nBe prepared to compromise; do homework - know the issues/sides.\nNMFS needs to be more straightforward - NMFS lawyers need to be on the team.\nGet the data first, then start on the process.\n12. Did you feel that the TRT negotiation process was fair?\nYes:\nGood process, but de-authorizing one fishery in mid-negotiation was tough on the moods. Swordfish squabbles\ncolored the argument process.\nProcess was fair; the facilitator was not prepared and was biased. NMFS did not honor the process.\nMust admit the TRT negotiations itself were conducted somewhat fairly. The breakdown came 24 hours after\nits completion, with several participating groups developing strategies to stymie TRT strategies.\nNo:\nNMFS never engaged. If NMFS had, and some of industry's practical suggestions been allowed a full\ndiscussion - some better alternatives could have been developed.\nNMFS nonsense to keep the \"hill\" happy and a few environmentalists.\n13. At the end of the last meeting, were you satisfied with the results or outcome of the\nnegotiation?\nYes, Why?\nIt was a decent plan that NMFS needs to implement. (2)\nI felt that is was as fair as possible for the first step of the plan.\nYes, but only partially because there were several loose ends that were left.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nIt appeared we had reached consensus on what looked at the outset like an impossible situation.\nNo, Why not?\nI agreed, under pressure, to something I should never have supported (set allocation).\nNo, because I felt the regime was focused on fishery management rather than marine mammal take reduction.\nPractical alternatives were buried. Never received complete/accurate data.\nThe TRT agreed to try some ideas that had little likelihood of working, without clearly identifying next steps if\nthe idea(s) failed.\nDid not thoroughly complete agreed upon telephone conversations, which created a few implicit changes. Not\nthe proper procedure; either stay and finish or set-up for another meeting.\nThe cleanest fishery (pair trawl) was not given a second look.\n14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\nComments:\nSolution of difficult problem with no one really \"winning.\"\nTo hear everyone's side and get a different viewpoint you may not have had. To gain a more balanced\nperspective. (3)\nReality check, NMFS officials are more concerned about their jobs and political futures, than mammal or\nfishery resources.\nProfessionally, the exchange between NMFS marine mammal and university and private sources was the most\nbeneficial in terms of learning more about the nature of the problem and the perceptions of the biological\nimpact.\n15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?\nComments:\nNMFS - nearly 2 year delay in implementation of any rule.\nLongliners went to congressional representatives and tried to influence process.\nNMFS's message to TRT as to what was an acceptable goal for reduction or reduction strategy changed\nconstantly.\nInsufficient data. (2)\nNMFS staff that cannot commit the agency to the plan. Lack of lawyer's (NOAA) willing to participate in the\nplan/TRT process to help legally guide the plan development.\nDealing with people with a fixed agenda.\nPlacing gillnets and pair trawl at the same table with hook and line was absurd. Dealing with animal activists\nprecludes attempts towards practical and reasonable alternatives. Ignoring the international component of\nmarine mammal interactions, especially for HMS fisheries is a fundamental flaw as is ignoring recreational\nmarine mammal takes and serious injuries.\nClosed-minded point of views by environmentalists and others on the extremely fast track process on difficult\nconcerns that did not happen overnight and were not to be remedied overnight without severe economic\nhardship. All or nothing attitude.\nWorking with inadequate data; inability of NOAA council to provide straight answers.\n16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT meeting during the time the NMFS Proposed\nManagement Plan is out for public comment?\nYes:\nPublic can observe and be in audience as has always been the case.\nTRT should be given an opportunity to review public comment.\nThe TRT's should meet to evaluate take rates, plan effectiveness, etc.\nAid in responding to comments and the possibility of tweaking the strategies further. Also to assure that they\nimplement these strategies in a timely fashion.\nWhy bother - NMFS does not care about what is right or wrong.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nNo:\nthink it depends on how different NMFS' plan is from what the TRT recommended.\nI\n17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource management decision\nmaking?\nYes:\nSometimes. If you don't have a formal \"Council\" type system to involve public this is probably next best.\nGood process could work but in this case, the swordfish battle is so political, it affected the process.\nIt is very helpful so long as the agency implements it -- which they have not! (2)\nIt is very important for the scientific and management communities to come together with user groups to solve\nproblems. Management cannot alone make decisions on an industry that they have no prior experience in.\nThey should all be on an equal footing.\nEspecially on Pelagic - HMS and PR of Office of Sustainable Fisheries mandates - fisheries management with\nlittle peer review. Not like the council system where you have an opportunity to participate. Industry input in\npelagic is lacking tremendously.\nIf you did not have too many parties, otherwise its more like a regional council which is a much longer process\nwhich the MM TRT process is designed to speed up.\nAssuming participants are willing to negotiate and that they reasonably represent their constituency.\nNo:\nNMFS has never published the plan, which does not support success or good faith. (2)\nNot under the parameters and representation set by this TRT.\n18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation process for the future?\nComments:\nNMFS needs to bring better analyses of data to the table.\nConsistent messages from NMFS- follow MMPA mandates for publishing plans and convening teams.\nThis group needs a strong facilitator.\nThe facilitators prepare themselves better and try to get a better grasp of the political issues.\nIt was evident that a professional ran TRT process and it would be hard to improve on that. The only\nimprovement I see would be for the government to make every effort to implement the TRT recommendations.\nNMFS should engage during the process to work through what would be reasonable and practical instead of\nrejecting a consensus outcome.\nNMFS scientists must be given ample opportunity and resources to have completed and requested data available\nplus provide explanatory assistance along the way.\nThe ability of the facilitator to call one more meeting to polish and fine-tune the recommendations Often, the\nfinal agreements are made in the final minutes before people have to leave to catch their flights. A firm\ndeadline drives these decisions. The polishing meeting could be announced after the final agreement meeting.\nBetter data and a better understanding of where the agency is going. Fairer and more industry representatives\non the teams, for they are being adversely impacted the most.\nDo not waste my time and other taxpayer money.\nMy biggest concern is that the TRT process will fail due to a timely lack of follow-through by NMFS.\nMake sure the data has been thoroughly peer reviewed.\nIV. Now Comments about the TRT Mediator?\nOverall, how would you rate the mediator's performance?\n2.","NAME OF TRT: Atlantic Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nComments:\nShe was caught in a political maelstrom; she could have been more assertive.\nI am always impressed working with a professional; the process goes smoother and saves a lot of wasted time.\nAllowed animal activists and certain academic individuals to veto important discussions and options.\nHer hands were tied.\n3.\nWhat advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\nMake sure people from NMFS are empowered to make decisions (as opposed to reflecting on them.)\nDon't allow NMFS to discuss original suggestions or structure and format.\nAllow time for small group caucuses involving different interests; these groups could discuss issue in detail and\nhammer out a draft to present to the whole group.\nInsist on valid and up to date data and the agency's agenda.\nPass on the job - let NMFS Leadership do it.","NAME OF TRT: Gulf of Maine TRT\nPlease return by September 14, 1998\nto Detra Stoddard, RESOLVE\n1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 275\nWashington, D.C. 20015\nProcess Evaluation Survey\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team Negotiation\nI.\nSome Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team (no comment\nsections)\nII.\nBefore the Negotiations Started (no comment sections)\nIII.\nDuring The Negotiations\n1. Did you think the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nYes: (No comments)\nNo:\nMost of the scientists were strongly biased toward the environmentalists\" position - not a resource for objective\ninformation.\nThe environmental extremist will never be satisfied, never and the feds are right with them.\nI think \"Balance of Perspectives\" would be better suited to \"advocacy.\"\n3. During the TRT meetings were you given an opportunity to express your views?\nSolving the HP and the RW issue is simple but it will go on and on an on. Money and politics is the name of\nthe game. It would only take 2 meetings each to solve it.\n4. During the meetings, were others able to present their views? (No comments)\n5. During the meetings, did you feel that your opinions were taken seriously and incorporated\ninto the recommended plan?\nYes:\nWhen I advocated strongly enough for them.\nNo:\nInformation about poor data collection and fleet size is yet to be improved by NMFS.\nThe environmentalists have an agenda - end of story.","NAME OF TRT: Gulf of Maine TRT\nIn complex marine management issues, not all data are available. Did you have sufficient\n6.\ndata in your TRT process to support the negotiation?\nYes:\nWith the caveat that the data on porpoise \"takes\" was an extrapolation from a very small sample of\nobservations. This fueled heated debates as to its accuracy.\nInformation on porpoises was pretty good.\nNo:\nBy-catch data and pattern information was old. More recent data would have been helpful.\nEffort data was lacking; NMFS must get a more accurate and \"real-time\" estimate of fishing effort to obtain a\nbycatch estimate.\nToo much data, it is not complex but the environmentalist and the feds make it so.\nI don't think that in Fisheries Management then will we be sufficient data. There are too many variables.\nDid you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\n7.\nYes:\nCenter staff was a great asset.\nNo:\nAgain, the scientists who should have filled this role were strongly biased.\nGot it for myself, it was not provided automatically.\nThe interpretations of the data are so politically tainted.\n8. During the meetings was there adequate time for informal negotiations and caucuses among\nparties.\nYes:\nHaving a meeting in an out of the way place where the group was forced to co-exist helped to encourage the\nexchange of ideas in an informal setting in which there was less posturing. (2)\nNo:\nThe industry people haven't learned how and where to caucus and they don't know how to negotiate among\nthemselves.\n10. Were the following items satisfactory, or not satisfactory (advance notice of mtgs., mtg.\nlocation, advance materials, 1gth. of mtgs., and mtg. summaries)\nIf anything, there was too much paper.\nThe location was not that great but it did force us to interact more with all segments of the TRT.\n11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate in future negotiation processes?\nDo your homework and discuss issues formally with other segments/representatives of the negotiations. (2)\nHope that NMFS does something meaningful with the results.\nThe ability to negotiate was difficult because there were stakeholders with nothing to lose (i.e. conservation\nindustry) and all the other stakeholders (i.e. fishing industry) were to ones provided the sacrifice.\nNever give up trying to reach consensus.","NAME OF TRT: Gulf of Maine TRT\n12. Did you feel that the TRT negotiation process was fair?\nYes:\nSpecial praise to the facilitator for her tough minded but even handed job of facilitating a bunch of very difficult\npeople.\nAll parties in this TRT negotiated in good faith, though I felt a slight bias in the process toward sympathy with\nindustry perspective.\nNo:\nSome did not feel they could speak for their group.\n13. At the end of the last meeting, were you satisfied with the results or outcome of the\nnegotiation?\nYes, Why?\nBest we could get under the circumstances. (3)\nI felt we had a plan that might work.\nNo, Why not?\nThere came a point where groups dug in their heels and resisted.\nI have little confidence in the final results.\nTRT process was bypassed.\n14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\nWorking on joint solution with mandated goal (PBR) and mandated timeline (problem with porpoise working\ngroup; no definite goal or endpoint. (2)\nReached a fair consensus.\nEducated participants arguments on both sides now more reasoned and better developed. (2)\nThat there was the ability to discuss a controversial issue to see the real agendas of some groups.\n15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?\nWorking with difficult personalities, having to be left out of negotiations while individuals worked on with\nthose difficult members. (2)\nResulted in a much better balanced plan than if NMFS had done it unilaterally.\nWe now know that NMFS does not necessarily act on recommendations.\nInterpreting data NMFS made more difficult to evaluate than needed.\nNMFS having too much say at the table.\nThe inability to see that some groups had none or very little comprehensive ability to understand the concerns of\nanother.\nDealing with people's lack of knowledge about what, when, and how we fish.\n16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT meeting during the time the NMFS Proposed\nManagement Plan is out for public comment?\nYes:\nNo:\nNo, the public does not have a clue.","NAME OF TRT: Gulf of Maine TRT\n17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource management decision\nmaking?\nYes:\nIt can be. If the factions are too far apart, then consensus will not be reached.\nYes, however, not for all issues. There is a great deal of information that has to be assimilated before one can\nsuccessfully step into the role of negotiation/manager. Poorly informed participants and crudely skilled\nnegotiators really gum-up the process and yield less than a good product.\nNo:\nSeemed to be a good idea, but NMFS does not publish plans without court involvement. (2)\nNot if NMFS picks and chooses what it wants from the results.\nIn some respects, due to the fact that it must be ongoing & dynamic. Its complete effect is still not known.\n18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation process for the future?\nLonger meetings - 3,4,5 days. Momentous builds but is lost and must be reestablished with only 2-day\nmeetings.\nNMFS needs to do what the MMPA says regarding timelines.\nTry to get firm agreement before leaving the table at the last meeting-- conference calls are a difficult way to\ncome to consensus.\nLonger commitment by participants to the process.\nAs long as we have more and more regulation like the Extreme ESA, Extreme MMPA, and the Extreme SFA\n(Sustainable Fisheries Act) - these laws will mandate, and what choice does the working person have? The\nTRT's cover the law, it is a mandate, and they do not solve anything!\nNot sure I support the process.\nIt should be binding.\nInclude only the stakeholders that have something to offer. The environmental industry as a stakeholder doesn't\nbring anything to the discussion but demands and this doesn't meld well with the industry that is offering the\nconditions of change.\nInvolve discussion makers so we know the outcome of our decisions.\nIV. Now Comments About the TRT Mediator\nOverall, how would you rate the mediator's performance?\n2.\nSometimes the facilitator could have handled certain Team members in a more positive manner than she did;\nalso I think she may have given too much deference certain Team members.\nThe facilitator did a great job of learning about a complicated topic where most everyone else was years into the\nprocess.\nBoth the facilitator for this Team as well as the facilitator for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team\nwere excellent.\nWhat advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\n3.\nTry to address some of the more difficult issues a bit earlier, and if there are small group negotiations, please try\nto provide the large group with something to work on.\nDon't rely on NMFS so heavily to identify the \"players.\" Bigger up-front investment in identifying the 'structure'\nof the playing field.\nTell the truth.","NAME OF TRT: Gulf of Maine TRT\nBe patient.\nLearn their subject prior to assembling the TRT.","NAME OF TRT: Mid-Atlantic TRT\nPlease return by September 14, 1998\nto Detra Stoddard, RESOLVE\n1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 275\nWashington, D.C. 20015\nProcess Evaluation Survey\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team Negotiation\nSome Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team (no comment\nI.\nsections)\nII.\nBefore the Negotiations Started (no comment sections)\nIII.\nDuring The Negotiations\n1. Did you think the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nYes:\nYes, however the focus was entirely directed at the fishing community. There appears to be minimal\ninterest/effort regarding other sources of mortality.\nNo:\nStill insufficient representation by the environmental/conservation community.\nI think there was an amazing lack of NMFS backbone - especially to back NMFS data presentations and stop\ndiscussions of PBR, which took a large chunk of time. If those topics were presented and strongly supported by\nNMFS, we might not have spent as much time.\nThe fishermen were ignorant of the situation and the scientific and environmentalists came with data and their\nminds made up.\n3. During the TRT meetings were you given an opportunity to express your views?\nComments:\nThis TRT group was too large to allow for everyone to express their views.\nI occasionally felt that our facilitator let an argument go on too long between 1 or 2 participants then cut\neveryone else off, sighting a lack of time. Our facilitator also seemed to play favorites once in a while.\nI understand the need for \"recognizing tent cards to speak\" but it quite often slowed down the process and\nrequired backtracking on many of the covered points.\nI was fortunate to be able to sit in on the process and to make comments for the commercial, environmental, and\nacademic groups.\n4. During the meetings, were others able to present their views?\nYes:\nMost of the time.","NAME OF TRT: Mid-Atlantic TRT\nSeveral alternates (one in particular) were acknowledged as if he were at the table when his partner was\nparticipating as well. This seemed to skew the argument.\nTime constraints occasionally affected this.\nNo: (no comments)\n5. During the meetings did you feel that your opinions were taken seriously and incorporated\ninto the recommended plan?\nYes:\nMost of the time; I felt that the fishing industry was taken more seriously than those from the academic and\nconservation industry.\nNo: (no comments)\nIn complex marine management issues, not all data are available. Did you have sufficient\n6.\ndata in your TRT process to support the negotiation?\nYes:\nNMFS employees were extremely helpful providing and analyzing data. (2)\nWhile not good, it was the best data available.\nYes, but the data could have been translated into laymen's terms.\nHuge improvement in timeliness of data over NE harbor porpoise team.\nNo:\nA great deal of the requested information could and should have been anticipated (due to prior work on TRT's)\nand available in advance.\nNever seem to have enough data.\nLittle data on bottlenose dolphins from small boat fisheries.\nMore data is always preferable, but Center staff did an outstanding job helping us develop a plan with the\navailable data. Nonetheless NMFS should place more observers on vessels in the Mid-Atlantic.\nWe probably had more data than other TRT's but it was still minimal. A lack of reliable scientific information\nbreeds overly conservative, risk averse, decision-making - this is a perfect example.\nHad to frequently identify needed data, most of which was provided at the next meeting. Some data on gear\nconfiguration and fishing effort had not been collected.\nObviously we did not as we dropped bottlenose dolphins due to lack of information.\nAll the data was one-sided, custom data.\n7. Did you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\nYes:\nFor the most part- NMFS staff was very helpful. On certain points I felt as though other groups around the table\nhad NMFS information long before I did - this was troubling.\nThe data was well represented - for NMFS- with all of the potential problems.\nYes, but it took much longer due to the complexity.\nCenter staff was terrific.\nNo: (no comments)","NAME OF TRT: Mid-Atlantic TRT\n8. During the meetings was there adequate time for informal negotiations between parties and\ncaucuses among parties.\nComments:\nSome groups may have used caucuses a bit too much. (2)\nYes, although the number of actual meetings and meeting duration's were limited.\nMost of the time, yes, however some parties were adamant on their position and resisted informal discussion.\nAs obvious leaders emerge, it would be useful to set aside time after meeting #13 for them to meet formally\nwith the mediator.\nPhiladelphia meeting (where we got stuck in the hotel) helped us get to know one another and promoted talks.\nThere was less opportunity for this at the D.C. meeting because we were in fragmented groups in separate\neating/drinking caucuses.\n10. Were the following items satisfactory, or not satisfactory (notice of meetings, meeting\nlocation, advance materials, length of meeting, meeting summaries)?\nComments:\nIt would have been useful to have one more meeting outside of Washington, DC.\nOne meeting in North Carolina would have been appropriate.\n11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate in future negotiation processes?\nThis group was too large to be effective.\nKeep the same people involved so you do not go back over the same topics.\nBring in the right mix of individuals and do not use antagonistic behavior as a negotiating strategy.\nSpeak-up.\nRead everything twice and try to find areas of agreement.\nGreater emphasis on bringing non-technical members up to speed on technical issues. Difficulty in negotiations\ndue to members being in different learning curves regarding the issues.\nWhen an argument cannot be resolved by the group (i.e., allocation of PBR) don't continue to discuss it - maybe\nsuspend meetings until NMFS makes a decision.\nBe cautious of stakeholders who have participated in a number of negotiations as they may deliberately torque\nor bias the negotiation.\nDefine process and issues better before the process formally begins.\nSupport development of moderate leaders on all sides.\nDon't come to a consensus unless you know you can live with the results.\nThe first 4 meetings are a lot of posturing, and the last 2 meetings are very serious.\nReview advance materials prior to the meeting.\nAll parties should have an open mind and realize that man cannot live on earth without having an impact on\nnature.\nBe prepared to compromise.\nDo homework; know the issues - all sides.\nNMFS lawyers should have been on the team.\n12. Did you feel that the TRT negotiation process was fair?\nYes:\nIn a general I would say it was fair. (2)\nNo:\nIn the overall context of the MMPA, available data, and focus only on commercial fishing - NO.\nPersons with experience in previous TRT's were able to exercise more control of the process than individuals","NAME OF TRT: Mid-Atlantic TRT\nwho were new to the process.\nFishermen went in open-minded, opponents had a design.\nNMFS dropped the bottlenose dolphin discussion after the meeting.\n13. At the end of the last meeting, were you satisfied with the results or outcome of the\nnegotiation?\nYes, Why?\nYes, best available outcome. (2)\nYes, however not satisfied with the prepared rule that will hit the street on Sept. 11th\nYes, the agreement was fair and seemed like it would work in reducing takes.\nYes, but only if the plan comes to fruition; is monitored and acted on - otherwise it will have been a waste of\ntime.\nNo, Why not?\nBringing in all interested/affected parties to negotiate shared/agreed upon outcome. (9)\nNo consensus. (2)\nI feel we could have reached consensus if some members of the scientific community and the environmental\ncommunity had been more willing to negotiate on the issue of pingers. (2)\nSome dishonesty by few members.\nToo much pressure to meet PBR when no one really knew what it should be.\nI thought we could reach consensus and improve the level of scientific information available for future TRT's -\nwe were not successful in this regard.\nNo, I felt that the meeting ended on a bad note with many members disenchanted by the outcome and the entire\nprocess.\nWe could have reached consensus, but industry always held a trump, and decided to use it on the very last day.\nThere was no follow-up at all from either RESOLVE or NMFS after the TRT was done.\n14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\nOpen forum- chance to express views, ask questions, talk with other parties, and learn new issues and ideas. (2)\nEducation- getting to know the breadth of data on gear interactions. (2)\nSolution of difficult problem with no one really \"winning.\"\n15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?\nI would say that it does not matter because NMFS has not acted on the findings of four of the five past TRT's.\nNMFS - year plus delay in implementing the prepared rule.\nNMFS staff at the table and contradicted themselves. They would not make a decision or a statement when the\nsituation clearly called for it.\nLong hours and late nights.\nNegotiating an agreement with so many different interests; only to have NMFS fail to implement it.\nUnderstanding all the data given the time constraints we had.\nNew England vs. Mid-Atlantic PBR issues.\nLack of good science.\nFull disclosure by all participants.\nLiving with the overly conservative MMPA structure.\nBringing everyone up to speed so all could operate from an even playing field.\nRefusal to truly negotiate on the part of some of the environmentalists.\nKnowing those on the other side were being paid while you were not.\nReading the data.\nAssessing the potential value of alternative management measures.\nRealizing there are people with such harsh views on environmental matters.","NAME OF TRT: Mid-Atlantic TRT\n16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT meeting during the time the NMFS Proposed\nManagement Plan is out for public comment?\nYes:\nPublic can observe and be in the audience as has always been the case.\nSeems to be a good idea.\nNo: If not, what kind of public involvement process would you suggest?\nHold a TRT meeting after comment period ends in order to provide the TRT an opportunity to work with\nNMFS after comments are taken. (5)\nMost of the public I have talked to don't have much interest in this process nor even have the knowledge as to\nwhat a harbor porpoise is.\nThe TRT's should meet to evaluate take rates, plan effectiveness, etc. \"Lets make it work.\"\nDo it like everything else, tell us: \"this is the way it is, live with it. \"\n17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource management decision\nmaking?\nYes:\nYes, however, it is only as effective as NMFS allows it to be; and so far NMFS has not implemented many of\nthe take reduction plans. (4)\nIt is the only way marine resource management can really work successfully. (2)\nSometimes. If you don't have a formal \"Council\" type system for public involvement then this is probably next\nbest.\nYes, but only if parties are willing to negotiate.\nMore effective than having it one-sided.\nNo:\nIt's biased.\nIt is a no win situation for the commercial fishing industry.\n18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation process for the future?\nAdd more time for the process. (2)\nHave NMFS send staff and legal council so they can both better advise and commit to the process.\nThe NMFS staff who make the final decisions should be participating in the process, which they don't always\ndo.\nHave NMFS staff at the table who can give clear, concise, definitive answers to questions and problems.\nThere was a general \"skepticism \" from the majority of previous TRT (2,3,4,5) participants that they could\npredict the outcome of this TRT; in this sense the process appeared stacked from the beginning.\nMy greatest concern is that the TRT process will fail due to lack of timely follow-through by NMFS, and all\nsides will have invested so much time for nothing. The credibility of the process will suffer, as well as fisheries\nmanagement in general.\nMore mail outs to the industry members while negotiations are on going.\nDon't start a TRT process without the best scientific information in hand.\nGovernment scientists should provide data assistance - not advocate.\nEnsure that all stakeholders are represented. The Mid-Atlantic TRT did not have representation by all\nstakeholders in the first few meetings.\nBetter up-front information on process and roles.\nEncourage leadership development, especially among working commercial fishermen.","NAME OF TRT: Mid-Atlantic TRT\nA solid base of what are the laws we are dealing with and what are the boundaries to the MMPA, PBR, stock\nassessment, and ESA. Lots of time was spent on these issues which are already covered by law.\nMore input into the draft of legislation instead of afterwards.\nCritical for each side to understand the issues and data behind the other side's position.\nMinimize wasted time.\nIV. Now Comments About the TRT Mediator\n2. Overall how would you rate the mediator's performance?\nOverall the mediator was good; however I get the sense that at times she gets impatient with some of the\npersonalities. This trait can potentially impede a facilitator's ability to break an impasse.\nI think the mediator could have moved forward during the discussions of PBR; we were not in this TRT to\ndiscuss PBR- it is law.\nFor someone who probably has never been on a fishing boat, she seemed to have knowledge of the business.\nWhat advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\n3.\nThe mediator to move the meeting along; as ours was.\nAct as facilitators, when a conversation hits a dead-end - move on!\nUse state agency representatives more; many of them have negotiation (informal) experience and know the\ncoastal fisheries very well.\nIn general, I do not think the TRT process works, mainly because NMFS does not act on their plans. Also, very\npolarized from the beginning.","NAME OF TRT: Pacific Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nPlease return by September 14, 1998\nto Detra Stoddard, RESOLVE\n1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 275\nWashington, D.C. 20015\nProcess Evaluation Survey\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nTake Reduction Team Negotiation\nSome Information About You and Your Take Reduction Team (no comment\nI.\nsections)\nII.\nBefore the Negotiations Started (no comment sections)\nIII.\nDuring The Negotiations\n1. Did you think the TRT membership reflected a balance of perspectives?\nYes:\nThe intended composition was balanced, however, some members of the \"scientific community\"\nseemed to be \"environmentalists\" rather than scientists. Conversely, some environmentalists tried to\nplay the scientist role.\nNo: (no comments)\n3. During the TRT meetings were you given an opportunity to express your views. (no\ncomments).\n4. During the meetings, were others able to present their views?\nYes: (no comments)\nNo:\nWe had a designated time for public opinion, however, many times we ran off-schedule and\nconsequently may have eliminated, or cut short the public comment period.\n5. During the meetings, did you feel that your opinions were taken seriously and\nincorporated into the recommended plan?\nYes:\n(no comments for either)\nNo:\nIn complex marine management issues, not all data are available. Did you have\n6.\nsufficient data in your TRT process to support the negotiation?","NAME OF TRT: Pacific Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nYes:\nWe had the best data of any of the TRT's.\nI believe we had the best data available considering timing and constraints NMFS did a good job.\nNo:\nLots of data but lack of current data and doubly conservative formula and estimates keeping the fishing\nmembership under a burdened perspective from some constituents.\nWe had to request additional analysis; the data had been summarized too much.\n7. Did you have the necessary assistance to interpret the data?\nYes: (no comments)\nNo:\nNot always, statistical data can be manipulated many ways. Perhaps an independent statistician would\nbe a useful asset.\n8. During the meetings was there adequate time for (informal negotiations and caucuses\namong parties)\nComments:\nIf anything there was too much time spent on the issues.\nPersonnel did well given the time constraints of the agenda.\nIn general, we were behind schedule most of the time.\nThe 1998 meetings were rushed. Additional time was necessary. There was no opportunity to discuss\nfuture or alternative strategies.\n10. Were the following items satisfactory or not satisfactory (meeting location, notice,\nand advance materials, length of meeting, meeting summaries)?\nComments:\nMeetings may have been a bit shorter, but our results were good so very hard to say.\nData should be current, and should be received at least one week prior to the meetings.\nWe need summaries of what we have agreed to posted on the wall (on flip charts) during the meeting.\nThe statements should be in different colored inks to enhance legibility. This is a standard facilitation\ntechnique, which improves the speed of wrap-ups and lets participants see that they are heard.\n11. What advice would you offer negotiators who participate in future negotiation\nprocesses?\nExperience with fishermen and their issues as well as the issues to be negotiated makes a difference.\nA bit more intervention from the mediators to prevent dominant voices from dominating. For\nexample, asking more often to hear from those who haven't spoken on an issue.\nDo your homework - understand the data prior to the meeting to the maximum extent possible.\nFor new members - obtain a good background in past TRT meetings so time spent re-hashing old ideas\nis not eliminated.\nDon't hesitate to consider new ideas to minimize bycatch.\n12. Did you feel that the TRT negotiation process was fair?","NAME OF TRT: Pacific Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nYes:\nYes, for those who participated. However, those voices not at the table, the ones on either side of the\nissue whose perspectives weren't fully represented (the fringe?) are important. We need to offer a\nforum for each of these extremes to voice their concerns; perhaps separately from each other.\nOverall yes, everyone is given a chance to express his or her views. Consensus is more \"fair\" than\nvoting.\nNo: (no comments)\n13. At the end of the last meeting, were you satisfied with the results or outcome of the\nnegotiation?\nYes, Why?\nExperiments yielded good results.\nAlthough data was somewhat flawed, the parties worked hard to achieve consensus on a plan and to\nreach a starting point.\nEveryone had their say, and agreed by consensus to a TRP.\nThe group dynamics are always challenging, yet managed fairly well.\nSatisfied, because the kill rate was down, and we didn't have to discuss alternative measures.\nNo, Why not?\nThe public participation was mishandled and the ZMRG issue a major problem.\nI believe we just \"stalled\" since the catch rates were low. No new ideas for reducing bycatch were\ndeveloped.\n14. What were the most beneficial aspects of the TRT process?\nEngaged and educated participants on complexity of the issue; making compromise easier.\nHaving all the data and all the perspectives on the table; interested parties creating solutions to\nproblems presented.\nBringing people together to promote a common goal - reducing the takes of marine mammals.\nAllowed a balanced position to be presented to NMFS. Harder for people not to listen to other's\nperspectives when face to face.\n15. What were the most difficult aspects of the TRT process?\nTime consuming.\nSetting aside preconceived ideas and trying to understand other people's concepts.\nFrustrations generated by divergent views or approaches.\nZMRG issues.\nDealing with people who were single-minded and refused to listen to others. Dealing and having to\nlisten to a rude public.\n16. Would you advise NMFS to hold a TRT meeting during the time the NMFS Proposed\nManagement Plan is out for public comment?\nYes: (no comments)\nNo, If not, what kind of public involvement process would you suggest?","NAME OF TRT: Pacific Offshore Cetaceans TRT\nUsual comment process by written response.\nWhat benefit would that have? Why not after the comment period so the public comments can be\ndiscussed.\n17. Is this multiparty negotiation process effective in marine resource management\ndecision making?\nYes:\nTo me, this TRT process (apart from implementation issues) is the most farsighted and positive action\nNMFS has ever taken to effectively promote resource management. (2)\nIt worked very well in our case, but may be cases where NMFS must make its own decision.\nNo:\n(No comments)\n18. What improvements would you suggest for the TRT negotiation process for the\nfuture?\nTwo annual meetings with current data available one week before the meetings. For our TRT- one\nmeeting at the end of February and one will all prior year's data at the end of May.\nNMFS should give more deference to consensus TRP's. (e.g. AOCTRT)\nAllow more time for informed \"mixers\" of all parties.\nIV. Now Comments About the TRT Mediator\n2.\nOverall how would you rate the mediator's performance?\nExcellent but could benefit from a few facilitation techniques.\nThe meetings were repetitive on some of the issues; could have moved the process along faster, giving\nus more time at the end of the meeting.\n3.\nWhat advice would you offer to mediators of future TRT processes?\nComments:\nBe sure the members of the TRT are committed to the process not just giving lip service to fair\nnegotiation.\nMake sure that ground rules are clearly established on the first day-, which our mediators did.\nBe sure to listen carefully. Try to understand the motivation behind what is said it may be more\nimportant that what is said."]}