MLMA Master Plan 4. Stakeholder Engagement

Engaging stakeholders in the management process is a central theme of the MLMA and can be a critical factor to the long-term success of any management strategy. Effective stakeholder engagement is important to help ensure that stakeholders with relevant local knowledge, and who are most likely to be directly affected by regulatory changes, are provided the opportunity to be involved in the management process. By adhering to core stakeholder engagement principles, the Department and stakeholders can build trust, create resilient relationships, and increase buy-in for—and ultimately compliance(opens in new tab) with—marine resource management decisions. Best practices and considerations associated with the use of various engagement strategies are drawn from an overview of stakeholder engagement strategies developed to inform the Master Plan amendment process (Kearns & West and Center for Ocean Solutions 2017).

Requirements related to stakeholder engagement

In addition to the policies of the MLMA, the Department and Commission are subject to a variety of other procedural and public participation mandates designed to inform and protect the public’s interests. These include the CEQA, APA, and Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Among their other provisions, these Acts define a minimum level of stakeholder engagement, primarily focused on advanced notice of public hearings and the process for providing public comment. The MLMA builds on the foundation created by these requirements by directing the Department to engage with stakeholders throughout the decision-making process. Section 7059 places significant emphasis on the importance of collaboration and directs the Department to involve interested parties when developing FMPs, status reports, and research plans. It also states that the Department shall periodically review fishery management efforts with the goal to improve communication, collaboration, and dispute resolution, and should seek advice from interested parties as part of the review.

Key stakeholder engagement principles and guidance

Five overarching principles should be integrated into any stakeholder engagement strategy under the MLMA (Kearns & West and Center for Ocean Solutions 2017):

1. Engage early and often.
2. Set clear goals.
3. Build relationships.
4. Ensure openness.
5. Pursue inclusivity.

The Department will draw on these key principles when selecting and implementing stakeholder engagement strategies. Table 1 provides details on each principle and guidance for application. Every outreach strategy will involve trade-offs. The challenge is to select the most appropriate approach given engagement goals and timing, stakeholder audiences, and available resources.

Selecting an effective stakeholder engagement approach

Appendix G includes an inventory of potential engagement strategies (i.e., advisory bodies, townhall meetings, listservs, etc.), as well as resources necessary for their use. Identifying which strategy, or combination of strategies, to employ is driven by several factors. These factors include the following:

1. Potential goals of engagement

1. Inform stakeholders: Educate the affected communities regarding potential or pending regulatory changes or general management efforts.
2. Solicit input: Understand the perspectives of various stakeholders and capitalize on their expertise.
3. Involve stakeholders in two-way dialogue to inform management decisions: Collaborate to develop alternatives.
4. Build trust: Develop a mutual understanding of objectives and transparency regarding the efforts to achieve them.

2. Timing of stakeholder involvement in the planning process (e.g., early, middle, or late phases of the planning, regulatory, or implementation process).

3. Stakeholder characteristics

1. Are the stakeholder communities well defined?
2. Do organized institutions exist within the fishery?
3. What is the relative capacity for engagement?
4. Are there leaders within the fishery?
5. What is the geographic size and geographical distribution of the fishery?
6. Are there any language barriers?
7. To what extent do the stakeholder communities use email and social media?
8. What is the history of engagement with the stakeholders’ communities on regulatory or other issues?

These considerations should also be weighed against additional opportunities and constraints such as the following:

• Whether resources such as funding, staff availability, and necessary skills are available to implement the strategy.
• Whether the legal and regulatory landscape affecting the process may place some constraints on which strategies are appropriate (e.g., litigation associated with the management of a particular marine resource can constrain options for stakeholder engagement).
• The history of past experiences associated with the use of specific engagement strategies in the fishery or resource management area. If the strategy was used in previous efforts and resisted by stakeholders, it may not be appropriate for the next management effort.
• Whether the current management process is contentious. In some cases, highly contentious stakeholder processes are best addressed using in-person strategies.

Engagement strategies for the specific levels of the management continuum

The general considerations provided above have been used to develop some specific recommendations for how to engage stakeholders at the various levels of the management continuum described in Chapter 3. Since the characteristics of specific fisheries will vary, the following discussion is intended to guide the development of a strategy for engaging stakeholders when generating three types of management documents: ESRs, rulemakings, and FMPs.

Stakeholder engagement for Enhanced Status Reports

While ESRs do not require a public process like FMPs, they do present an important opportunity for stakeholder input. The following process has been identified for their development:

• Stakeholders and outside experts should be consulted, and partnerships should be employed where helpful in the development of draft ESRs.
• ESRs should be living documents maintained by the Department. Once approved, they can be updated without returning to the Commission. Stakeholders and researchers can suggest changes and provide information at any time.
• Each ESR should identify a contact for the public to direct comments.

A primary purpose of ESRs is to identify gaps in research and understanding that researchers and stakeholders can help to fill. ESRs are Department documents, but they are intended to capitalize on the interest and expertise of outside scientific and stakeholder communities.

Stakeholder engagement for Enhanced Status Reports plus focused rulemakings

When an ESR needs to be augmented with a rulemaking, additional public processes are required. In addition to what is legally required, the Department should take further steps to ensure that stakeholders and the public are engaged and involved in decision-making. Every fishery and rulemaking is different and the appropriate course will vary; however, in a typical case the Department should take the following actions:

• Have preliminary discussions with participants in the affected fishery to understand perspectives and underlying issues.
• Brief the Fish and Game Commission(opens in new tab)’s Marine Resources Committee (MRC) and the full Commission as directed, on the purpose and need for a rulemaking, and present the Department’s approach for engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process.
• Conduct broader outreach to stakeholders likely to be affected to understand their perspectives and ideas regarding potential regulations.
• Discuss proposed regulations with the MRC.
• Refine proposed regulations if possible based on MRC and public input.

Stakeholder engagement for Fishery Management Plans

An FMP may be necessary when more comprehensive management changes are needed (see Chapter 3). While management changes that occur via an FMP may be more substantial, stakeholder engagement should still be as focused and targeted as possible. The development of an ESR as a first step should help to focus the FMP development efforts on the areas where change is needed and on issues of most direct relevance to stakeholders. As with rulemakings, the needs of each FMP development process will vary. The following activities can help ensure effective MLMA-based engagement:

• Engage in direct communication with affected stakeholders, including those participating in the fishery.
• Consider opportunities for attracting funding or other resources and leveraging partnerships.
• Where appropriate, engage fishery participants in the application of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)(opens in new tab) (see Chapter 5) as a means of scoping FMP issues and options.
• Brief the MRC on the purpose, need, and proposed scope and scale for an FMP, describe the relationship to the priorities identified through Chapter 2, and identify the plan for engaging stakeholders in decision-making.
• Alert the public to the intent to develop an FMP and the issues to be addressed using the Department website, list serves, social media, and mailings.
• Where possible, conduct targeted outreach to help inform management and understand stakeholder perspectives regarding specific issues.
• Convene ad-hoc advisory group(s) as needed to address issues involving new regulations. (As discussed in Appendix G, these groups can be relatively resource intensive, especially when addressing contentious issues. Their use may be a primary difference between more streamlined and traditional FMPs in terms of stakeholder engagement and process intensity.)
• Hold standing agenda items at MRC meetings during draft development, highlighting key issues and soliciting input where needed.
• Hold public meetings, conference calls, or webinars during draft development, highlighting key issues and soliciting stakeholder input where needed.
• Provide a draft FMP for public review at least 30 days prior to submission to the Commission.

Regardless of the strategy used, the Department should regularly evaluate stakeholder engagement to measure whether current strategies are achieving target outcomes. The most effective approach may change over time, and the Department may need to adapt to better suit the changing needs of marine resources and stakeholders.