Detailed Information on the
Coast Guard Fisheries Enforcement Assessment

Strengthen current top-level outcome measure that better reflects mission performance by measuring the Coast Guard's level of effective enforcement during at-sea boardings.

Develop continuous strategic planning process.

Continue to improve data acquisition and reporting for the fisheries missions.

Develop long-term goals that demonstrate annual performance improvement in preventing foreign fishing vessel incursion.

The Coast Guard should have independent program evaluations conducted on a regular basis.

Measure: Percent of fishing vessels complying with federal regulations.

Explanation:Percentage of U.S. Coast Guard boardings of domestic fishing vessels without significant violations of Federal regulations being found (those that result in significant damage or impact to the fisheries resource, provide significant monetary advantage to the violator, or have high regional or national interest), divided by the total number of USCG domestic fishing vessel boardings. The measure is an observed compliance rate, as boardings are not random; vessels deemed a higher likelihood of being in violation receive a higher boarding priority. The Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act specifically task the Coast Guard with enforcing fisheries regulations. Observed Compliance rate documents the effectiveness of at - sea enforcement to advance conservation and management of living marine resources and their environment.

Measure: Number of incursions into the U.S. exclusive economic zone.

Explanation:This performance measure counts the number of foreign fishing vessel (FFV) incursions into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). FFV incursions provide an indication of the adequacy of U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) security efforts within the EEZ. The 3.36 million square mile U.S. EEZ includes the sea floor and adjacent waters extending up to 200 nautical miles away from the U.S. and its territories. It is the largest EEZ in the world, containing up to 20% of the world's fishery resources. The Magnuson-Stevens Act charges the Coast Guard to enforce fisheries regulations within it. Coast Guard units conduct this mission to maintain sovereign control of our maritime borders, protecting fish stocks from foreign exploitation and denying terrorists and other threats from using maritime routes to harm the United States. Data for the measure are collected through external sources and USCG units patrolling the EEZ. The information is consolidated at USCG HQ through monthly messages from the Area Commanders.

Measure: Percent of incursions of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone by illegal foreign fishing vessels interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard

Explanation:This measure is the percentage of detected illegal foreign fishing vessel incursions into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone that are interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard. This measures shows the U.S. Coast Guard's pursuit of enforcement activities (i.e. vessel seizure or demarche) vice simply detecting incursions. As this rate increases, a deterrent effect is expected, along with a reduction in the total number of vessel incursions.

Measure: Percent of fishing vessels complying with federal regulations/operating expenses of the U.S. Coast Guard's Living Marine Resources Program.

Explanation:This measure shows the the percentage of U.S. Coast Guard-boarded domestic fishing vessels without significant Federal regulation violations per $10 million of program operating expenses as calculated by the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Model.

Measure: Interdiction rate / operating expenses of the U.S. Coast Guard's Other Law Enforcement (foreign fishing vessel enforcement) Program

Explanation:This measure shows the percentage of Coast guard-interdicted illegal foreign fishing vessels per 10 million dollars of program operating expenditures as calculated by the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Model.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The CG's objective is to provide the at-sea enforcement necessary to reach national goals for living marine resource conservation and management. (Fisheries management is the responsibility of Commerce/NOAA.)

Evidence: * Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 * 1995 CG Fisheries Enforcement Study * 1999 Fisheries Enforcement Strategic Plan, "Ocean Guardian"

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the threat of illegal fishing and the negative impacts on an industry that provides over $50 billion/year to the U.S. economy. Enforcement of regulations is necessary to achieve compliance to support NOAA Fisheries efforts to end over-fishing, rebuild and manage fish stocks, and reduce impacts to fish habitat. According to NOAA, 36% of US fish stocks are overfished (i.e., the size of a particular fish stock is below a biological minimum for sustainability).

Evidence: * NOAA Fisheries 'Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries ' 2002,' pg. iv, available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reports.html * UN FAO OceanAtlas Report, 'Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing,' pg. 1, available online at: www.oceansatlas.com/world_fisheries_and_aquaculture/html/issues/govern/iuu/default.htm

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The CG shares fisheries enforcement responsibilities with NOAA Fisheries and state enforcement agencies, and the CG is lead for at-sea enforcement of fisheries regulations. Enforcement activity is closely coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and state enforcement agencies. Coast Guard is the only agency capable of projecting a law enforcement presence throughout the 3.34 million square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and in key areas of the high seas.

Evidence: * 28 USC 1385, POSSE COMITATUS. * Interagency agreement with NOAA. * CG has established liaison officers at State Department Office of Marine Conservation and NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement to ensure the program's activities are coordinated and complement the national and international efforts of these federal agencies. * The program has also established a Law Enforcement Committee on each of the 8 regional fisheries management councils to coordinate federal and state enforcement activities and priorities with these regulatory bodies.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Fisheries enforcement is a law enforcement activity and is therefore most appropriately conducted as a direct federal program. NOAA conducts the fisheries management aspect as a regulatory program.

Evidence: No other mechanism is feasible.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Coast Guard targets its fisheries enforcement resources through meetings with the regional councils, including federal and state enforcement agencies and industry partners, to identify significant threats, and by studying the history and science of stock migration and fishing activity.

Evidence: Law Enforcement Committees of the regional fisheries management councils coordinate federal and state enforcement activities and ensure efforts are appropriately focused.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has two outcome measures that support the program's purpose ' to provide the at-sea enforcement necessary to reach national goals for fish conservation and management. They are observed compliance rate (domestic fisheries enforcement mission) and number of detected Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) incursions (foreign fisheries enforcement mission). NOAA tracks the outcome measure of health of the fish stocks (overarching objective); the CG measures the outcome of its contribution, enforcement, to the overall national objective.

Evidence: FY 2002 Performance Report and FY 2004 Budget in Brief

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The annual and long-term goals for this program are the same. Each year, Coast Guard aims to have 202 or fewer incursions in the EEZ and 97% or better observed compliance rate with domestic regulations. While having a static goal for domestic fisheries enforcement is defensible because of improved targeting, Coast Guard should develop long-term goals that demonstrate annual performance improvement for foreign fisheries enforcement.

Evidence: * Domestic: Improved targeting and implementation of the Vessel Monitoring System will allow Coast Guard to focus on likely violators, which would drive down the observed compliance rate ceteris paribus. If the compliance rate remains at 97%, the program's deterrent impact has increased enough to outweigh the greater focus on likely violators. * Foreign: Although funding for this mission has decreased, efforts are underway to return it to pre-9/11 levels in the future. There is no compelling reason, as in domestic fisheries enforcement, why a static goal represents continuous improvement on this measure in the long term.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The CG tracks the total number of foreign fishing vessel incursions into the U.S. EEZ, as it gauges the program's performance relative to achieving the performance goal of eliminating encroachment of the U.S. EEZ by foreign fishing vessels. The CG also tracks the compliance rate in domestic fisheries, as it gauges the program's performance relative to achieving the performance goal of effectively enforcing federal regulations that provide stewardship of living marine resources and their environments.

Evidence: FY 2002 Performance Report and FY 2004 Budget in Brief

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: Each year, the program aims to limit EEZ incursions to 202 or less each year and to maintain the domestic compliance rate at 97% or higher. As short-term goals, these targets are ambitious and indicate success in enforcing fisheries regulations.

Evidence: FY 2002 Performance Report and FY 2004 Budget in Brief

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program encourages close cooperation with its state and federal law enforcement partners through annual planning guidance and other correspondence. CG also has a seat on all 8 Regional Fisheries Management Councils (RFMC).

Evidence: * Mission Planning Guidance * Interagency agreement between NOAA and CG * Federal-State cooperative enforcement agreements * CG liaisons at State Department Office of Marine Conservation and NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement * Law Enforcement Committee on each of the 8 regional fisheries management councils * CG/State/NOAA National Plan of Action to Deter Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: While numerous studies have considered aspects of the fisheries program, there have been no comprehensive, independent analyses of its effectiveness. Coast Guard is in the early stages of initiating a study with the Center for Naval Analyses that they hope will provide for a plan of regular evaluations.

Evidence: The most substantial review of the fisheries program has been the 1993 "Coast Guard Fisheries Enforcement Study." However, this study cannot be considered a program evaluation. It was a summary of workshops attended by Coast Guard, its Federal and state enforcement partners, and the fishing industry. While MicroSystems Integration, Inc., and Battell Ocean Sciences, as independent entities, wrote the summary of the meetings, they did not conduct a scientific study of the program's success in enforcing fisheries laws. The content was provided by the interested parties participating in the workgroup. As the Executive Summary states, this report provides "an overview of the current activities" and "an understanding of the relationship between the various enforcement activities." It is concerned with customer satisfaction. While this is useful information to have and contributes to the program's "Yes" answers on questions such as 1.3, 2.5, and 3.5, it does not fill the need for an objective evaluation of whether the program is meeting its goals.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Coast Guard uses a performance-based budgeting system. This methodology ties funding levels directly to performance goals and targets. Additionally, the CG's Mission Cost Program model provides comprehensive cost information for individual programs, including overhead and other indirect costs, as well as direct costs.

Evidence: * The United States Coast Guard FY2003 Report: Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Budget & Fiscal Year 2004 Budget in Brief * Budget Estimates: Fiscal Year 2004

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: To correct Coast Guard-wide deficiencies identified in earlier PARTs, Coast Guard has initiatied a study with the Center for Naval Analyses that they hope will provide for a plan of regular evaluations.

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: * The Maritime Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) and Abstract of Operations (AOPS) databases provide high quality data supporting input measures (i.e. levels of effort such as cutter and aircraft patrol hours, numbers of boardings, etc) and output measures (i.e. types of violations). * The program collects performance information through the monthly District/Area Living Marine Resource Enforcement Summary message report. This report provides detailed information from regional commanders on EEZ and Domestic Fisheries enforcement effort and results, upcoming operations, developing significant fisheries management issues, new regulations requiring additional at-sea law enforcement, and an overall command assessment. This provides the program manager a regional Commander's Assessment used to adjust priorities and resource allocation. * This performance information is collected and analyzed internally and also shared with management and enforcement partners such as the Regional Fisheries Management Councils and State and Federal enforcement agencies through quarterly (or more frequent if necessary) meetings at the HQ and regional level. Through these meetings enforcement priorities, tactics, and operations are planned and coordinated between all participating agencies.

Evidence: * MISLE and AOPS databases * Monthly District/Area Living Marine Resource Enforcement Summary message report

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Coast Guard has launched a Leadership Council Management Agenda (LCMA) to keep senior officials focused on key projects. For each program, the LCMA identifies the lead officials, the desired end-stage, and executable segments of the project, including timetables and resources. The leads report to the Commandant at Leadership Council meetings, while the Chief of Staff tracks their progress between meetings.

Evidence: * LCMA Update Process

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The Coast Guard obligates substantially all (over 99%) operating funds (Operating Expense Appropriation) each year. Virtually all capital acquisition funds (Acquisition, Construction and Improvement Appropriation) are obligated prior to expiring. The Coast Guard's Office of Financial Management enforces the provisions of COMDTISNT 7100.3(series), Financial Resources Management Manual that specify quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits.

Evidence: * Estimated obligations by quarter in apportionments * Actual obligations by quarter

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Operational decisions are decentralized to the district level and lower to delayer the organization. The program allows for flexible local sourcing for site management. CG continually looks to improve efficiency through IT and technological advances. As an example, the CG is working with NOAA to institute a National Vessel Monitoring System that will provide our cutters and command centers with near real-time position updates on fishing vessel positions. This has already resulted in 7 significant fisheries violation detections this year that would not have occurred without VMS info and has also been useful in several SAR cases. Additionally, the CG does competitively outsource various elements of the program, including maintenance to the Law Enforcement Asset Needs computer model.

Evidence: * National Vessel Monitoring System

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Enforcement activity is closely coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and state enforcement agencies.

Evidence: * Interagency agreement with NOAA. * CG has established liaison officers at State Department Office of Marine Conservation and NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement to ensure the program's activities are coordinated and complement the national and international efforts of these federal agencies. * The program has also established a Law Enforcement Committee on each of the 8 regional fisheries management councils to coordinate federal and state enforcement activities and priorities with these regulatory bodies.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Coast Guard is a leader in both financial and managerial accounting among large, multi-mission agencies within the government, employing systems and techniques that meet or exceed the requirements fo the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. This is evidenced by four consecutive clean audits under the Chief Financial Officers Act and cost accounting techniques for management reporting on asset, mission and performance goal costs that substantially exceed the requirement of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard number 4.

Evidence: Four consecutive clean audits under the CFO Act.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Beginning in 1993, every five years the program has conducted a study of its enforcement practices through workshops with representatives from Coast Guard, NOAA, state agencies, and the fishing industry. While this study does not constitute an independent performance evaluation, it is a useful tool for identifying management concerns.

Evidence: 1993 and 1999 Fisheries Enforcement Studies resulted in significant management improvements, including the establishment of: * Five Regional Fisheries Training Centers to train fisheries boarding officers * Marine Affairs Postgraduate Program for fisheries law enforcement staff officers * Liaison officers at State and NOAA to better coordinate activities * Law enforcement advisory panels on all eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils * Fisheries intelligence officer billets

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: Foreign Fishing Vessel Incursions goal has been met in 2 of the last 7 years. Living Marine Resources compliance rate has been high (greater than 95%) for the last three years, and mid-term FY03 data shows that it should remain at this level.

Evidence: CG Performance Report

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Foreign Fishing Vessel Incursions goal has been met in 2 of the last 7 years. Living Marine Resources Compliance rate has been high (greater than 95%) for the last three years, and goal of 97% was met for the last two years.

Evidence: CG Performance Report

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: The program has encouraged operational planners to capitalize on efficiencies in operations, including conducting boardings of opportunity during homeland security and other missions and increasing use of VMS and intelligence information to conduct targeted boardings. As of mid-FY03, 7 of the 43 detected significant violations were the direct result of this type of information and would very likely never have been detected without this information.

Evidence: * Law Enforcement Planning Guidance

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: * According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, in some countries, up to 30% of the total catch is from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries. While CG does not collect this type of data, the fact that 97% of vessels boarded are in compliance suggests that far less than 30% of the total U.S. catch is from illegal sources.* According to the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency's 2002 report, in 1,295 at-sea boardings, they detected 82 cases of alleged illegal activity which appear to be in line with the USCG definition of significant violations. This equates to an observed compliance rate of 93.7%, vs. CG's 97.3%.

Evidence: * UN FAO OceanAtlas Report, 'Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing,' pg. 1, available online at: www.oceansatlas.com/world_fisheries_and_aquaculture/html/issues/govern/iuu/default.htm* Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency 2000 Annual Report, agency key performance measures and targets, available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/fisheries/sfpa-00.asp

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: This program has not had comprehensive, independent evaluations of its performance.

Evidence: