Archived – International Fisheries Conservation Evaluation

Archived information

The Standard on Web Usability replaces this content. This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.

Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Project Number 6B121
September 14, 2010

Table of Contents

IFC List of Acronyms

AAFA
American Albacore Fishing Association
AAFC
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
APEC
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
C&P
Conservation and Protection
CCG
Canadian Coast Guard
CCSBT
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
CDS
Catch Documentation System
CFIA
Canada Food Inspection Agency
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
COFI
Committee on Fisheries
DFAIT
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
DFO
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DMC
Deputy Minister Committee
DPR
Departmental Performance Report
ENGO
Environmental Non Government Organisations
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
FAM
Fisheries Aquaculture Management
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation
GoC
Government of Canada
HQ
Headquarters
IAD
International Affairs Directorate
IATTC
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICES
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IFC
International Fisheries Conservation
IUUG
Illegal, unreported and unregulated
IFC
International Fisheries Conservation
IPOA
International Plan of Action
IPOA-IUU
International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
IUU fishing
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
MCS
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
MOU
Memorandum of Agreement
NAFO
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
NASCO
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
NCEM
NAFO Conservation Enforcement Measures
NEAFC
North East Atlantic Fisheries
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPAFC
North Pacific
NPOA
National Plan of Action
NRA
NAFO Regulated Area
OECD
Organization Economic Cooperation and Development
OGD
Other Government Departments
PA
Precautionary Approach
PAA
Program Activity Structure
PMF
Program Management Framework
PMS
Program Management Strategy
RA
Regulatory Area
RFMO
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
RPP
Report on Plans and Priorities
SAR
Species At Risk
TAC
Total Allowable Catch
UK
United Kingdom
UN
United Nations
UNCLOS
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNFA
United Nations Fish Agreement
UNFSA
United Nations Fish Stock Agreement
US
United States
VME
Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems
VMS
Vessel Monitoring System
WCPFC
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
WTO
World Trade Organisation

 

1.0 Executive Summary

Introduction

An evaluation of the International Fisheries Conservation Program (IFC) was conducted in 2009-2010 to assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the program.  The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the extent to which the IFC demonstrates achievement of expected outcomes in a cost efficient and effective manner.  The time frame covered in the evaluation was from 2004/05 to 2009/10. The evaluation was carried out from December 2009 to May 2010 in the National Capital Region (NCR) and in the Regions.

Program Background

The International Fisheries Conservation (IFC) Program within Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) was created to initiate reforms in international fisheries management and to combat overfishing in support of federal priorities for international leadership, sustainable fisheries, preserving regional interests and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). 

The IFC falls principally under the mandate of the International Affairs Directorate (IAD).  The program was initially launched in 2004/05 as an interim strategy in response to weak regional management of fisheries and the need for reforms in international fisheries with special emphasis on deterring overfishing in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

The program supported key ongoing commitments of the Government to combat overfishing on Canada’s coasts and aligned with the core priorities identified in the October 2007 Speech from the Throne.  These were:

  • international leadership,
  • sustainable fisheries,
  • preserving regional interests and
  • protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

In 2008, permanent funding was provided for the IFC Program and the Ambassador for
Fisheries Conservation was appointed.   This appointment has contributed significantly to
stronger bilateral relations with countries such as the European Union (EU) and Nordic
States and enhanced advocacy for Canadian interests. 

This funding enabled Canada to be positioned as an influential global leader and to make further gains in implementing commitments such as NAFO’s modernization, the creation of new Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and the protection of VMEs. 

Evaluation Methodology

Multiple lines of evidence were used for this evaluation.  These included:

  • Review of literature, files and program documentation;
  • Qualitative data from case studies for North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Canada-United States (US) Albacore Tuna Treaty;
  • Qualitative data from 22 meetings with 17 key informants at Headquarters and in the regions (some key informants were interviewed more than once).

The evaluation applied triangulation which involves using multiple methods and data
sources to eliminate bias and to improve the validity of evaluation findings (Miles &
Huberman, 1984).  The findings for the two case studies for NAFO and the Canada-US
Albacore Tuna Treaty and the qualitative data from interviews within DFO were triangulated with evidence from the literature, file and document review to provide for adequate substantiation of the observations, conclusions, findings and recommendations on the relevance and performance of the program.

Since this is the first evaluation of the IFC Program, the collection of a substantial amount of information was necessary to provide for a good understanding of the program and its challenges. In addition, to provide adequate contextual background for future evaluations of the program, several program characteristics are described in this report; this is in no way intended to detract from the analysis presented herein but rather aims to create an adequate historical account of the conditions of the program and its environment at the time this evaluation was conducted.

Limitations and caveats

The evaluation team experienced limitations affecting the scope of this evaluation due to the unavailability of some key informants for interviews and the lack of a fully operationalized Performance Measurement Strategy, a Corporate Risk Profile and a systematic data collection system for IFC components.

The limitations on interviews were in part due to the informants’ compressed travelling commitments within the timelines for delivery of the evaluation. The interview plan included the Ambassador of Fisheries and several NGOs as well as bilateral partners such as EU and US representatives, but these key informants were not available at the time of the evaluation interview phase.

It should also be noted that due to the specialized and particular knowledge and expertise of the individuals interviewed, references to evidence collected from key informant interviews is generally not prefaced with an indication of the percentage of respondents. This has been done as an effort to not identify specific individuals.

These factors should be considered when assessing the findings of this evaluation.

1.1 Findings

The following findings of the evaluation address the relevance and performance of the IFC Program:

1.  IFC was aligned with Government of Canada and DFO/CCG priorities.
  • IFC activities support priorities such as international leadership, Canada’s sovereign rights in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), expanding international trade and strengthened Regional Management Fisheries Organizations.
  • IFC supports the DFO/CCG Business Plan 2010-11.
2. IFC was aligned with Government of Canada and DFO/CCG roles and responsibilities.
  • IAD supports the DFO/CCG international commitments which are derived from its mandate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, the Oceans Ac, the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
  • The current delivery model of international fisheries       management and conservation provided by the IFC Program is sound.
3. There was a continued need for IFC.
  • The IFC Program must continue in order to protect Canada’s economic and environmental interests and to position Canada as a global leader in high seas issues.
4. IFC achieved its expected outcomes.
  • IFC achieves its` intended outcomes for the development of international instruments, demonstrating foreign state compliance with international agreements, developing constructive relationships and participating in international commissions.  
5. IFC is efficient and economical.
  • IFC could improve its efficiency with respect to the monitoring and reporting of its activities and outputs by improving their planning processes.
  • There is a risk that the delivery of the IFC Program will be impacted if IFC resource commitment is not aligned with current and upcoming international obligations.

1.2 Relevance

The IFC Program was created to initiate reforms in international fisheries and to combat overfishing in support of federal priorities. The organisation responsible for the IFC Program has been reorganized to integrate these activities under one Directorate, the International Affairs Directorate (IAD). 

The IAD is responsible for the negotiation and administration of international treaties and agreements related to fisheries and marine mammal conservation, the conduct of bilateral and multilateral fisheries relations with other countries, advocacy and the formulation and presentation of international fisheries advice to the Minister.  The IAD also conducts advocacy campaigns with priority countries to further Canadian objectives and interests in international fora.

Findings:

  • IFC activities support priorities such as international leadership, Canada’s sovereign rights in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), expanding international trade and strengthened Regional Management Fisheries Organisations.
  • IFC supports the DFO/CCG Business Plan 2010-11.
  • IAD supports the DFO/CCG international commitments which are derived from its mandate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, the Oceans Act, the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

Evidence: 

A review of strategic planning documents for the new IAD (2010) supports the alignment of the IFC with Government of Canada priorities.  The IFC Program contributes to the Government of Canada long term priorities of strengthening Canada’s economic union and expanding international trade.  The relevance of this program’s trade related activity was underscored in the 2010 Speech from the Throne with a focus on aggressive pursuit of free trade with a range of bilateral partners.   

Based on a review of program documentation, international governance has been a DFO priority since 2005-06. The Oceans Act has broadened DFO’s role requiring the Department to participate in international fora to promote stewardship and sustainable development. The IAD mandate supports DFO/CCG international commitments which are derived from its mandate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, the Oceans Act, the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The IFC mandate aligns with the DFO/CCG Business Plan 2010-11.

Findings:

  • The IFC Program must continue in order to protect Canada’s economic and environmental interests and to continue to position Canada as a global leader in high seas issues.
  • The current delivery model of international fisheries management and conservation provided by the IFC Program is sound.

Evidence: 

Key informants expressed that without the IFC Program, Canada would not meet its international commitments and there could be potential political fall-out.  This is particularly critical for NAFO for which Canada must continue its enforcement efforts to protect its interests as the commission’s efforts alone would not be sufficient.

Based on a review of the literature, the need for international cooperation in managing fisheries continues to be of vital importance, both due to the increasing importance of high-seas fisheries, and due to mobility of many stocks across and beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of coastal countries. 

The task of the IFC Program is becoming more complex with the move toward new approaches in international fisheries management. This places the onus on the IFC Program, and similar programs in other States, to take responsibility for the management of fisheries, even when direction from science is unclear.  Further challenges are added by a move toward ecosystems management, where organisms and their environment are viewed as a type of network, linked to each other in complex patterns.1  There is a need for the IFC Program to continue and meet these new challenges.   

Impact of not having the IFC Program

Key informants have commented that the lost opportunity of participating in international fora would result in a loss of influence over international treaties and agreements and the cascading effect of a negative impact on Canada’s economic opportunities, trade relationships and the value of exports.

Additionally, environmental issues increasingly have an impact on markets and Canada endeavours to renew its policies to support harvesters and allow them greater flexibility in managing their enterprises. 

Key informants have reported that the IFC Program is the right mechanism to deliver on Canada’s international obligations for the management of fisheries.  The evidence of achievement of international leadership as demonstrated in the following sections attests to the soundness of the IFC program.

1.3  Performance - Effectiveness

Finding:

  • IFC achieved its` intended outcomes for the development of international instruments, demonstrating foreign state compliance with international agreements, developing constructive relationships and participating in international commissions.  

Four key interdependent activities were assessed to report on these outcomes.  They include:

  1. creating broad and constructive relationships through common goals and strategies with international partners;
  2. demonstrating foreign state compliance with the terms of international agreements;
  3. contributing to the development of international instruments and agreements to satisfactorily protect and share fish stocks;
  4. participating as member in international commissions effective in achieving the expected outcomes for the conservation of fisheries stocks.

These activities are interdependent as the international commissions provide the forum for many of the relationships to come to fruition and the common purpose of foreign state compliance is actioned collectively by these same actors through the development of international instruments and agreements.  Evidence for the achievement of outcomes is described below for each activity, although each activity supports common outcomes.

Activity 1:  Creating broad and constructive relationships through common goals and strategies with international partners. 

Evidence: 

Based on the DFO website and key informant interviews, through diplomatic relations, and the role of the Ambassador, Canada has entered into both formal and informal arrangements and agreements on fisheries, oceans and science issues with a number of nations.  Canada maintains partnerships with 11 national and international organizations, and manages several  MOUs and treaties with international partners. Canada’s lead role developing new agreements, providing workshops and hosting or chairing capacity building conferences and various committees has advanced Canada’s influence in international fisheries and facilitated the creation of new partnerships and sustainment of existing ones. Opportunities exist for IAD to pursue new partnerships with countries that are emerging as key actors such as China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea. 

DFO key informants agree that Canada is very effective in creating constructive relationships with international partners. Building strong partnerships worldwide with other governments and stakeholders on fisheries and oceans issues enables Canada to work with like-minded countries and organizations to combat overfishing and to improve global management of fish stocks and oceans ecosystems.  Informants agreed that it is essential for Canada and its partners to maintain close working relationships in order to eliminate illegal fishing activities.

Exchange of IUU fishing vessel lists

Canada generally co-sponsors UN General Resolutions on the Law of the Sea and on Sustainable Fisheries. Canada is a responsible member of various RFMOsCanada encourages collaborative efforts to reduce IUU fishing and has agreed not to allow entry to vessels on the IUU lists of NAFO or ICCAT. These IUU fishing vessel lists2 are key tools for combating IUU fishing. 

Joint Enforcement Patrols

Efforts to build constructive relationships with international partners were equally successful at sea with joint patrols3 undertaken with the US, EU and Norway.  In August 2008, Canada and the United States concluded a series of successful joint enforcement patrols in NAFO Regulatory Area. This type of joint enforcement gives officers from both countries a chance to meet face-to-face, demonstrate best practices, and work together to discover new techniques that can help the fight against illegal fishing.

Potential for new partnerships

Based on program documentation, informal fisheries consultations with the US take place annually to discuss issues of NAFO, IATTC, WCPFC and tuna RFMOs in part, and global fisheries issues such as FAO IPOA4.  [International Affairs].  DFO and DFAIT key informants reported the following indicators in support of Canada’s success in creating broad constructive relationships with its international partners:

  • The MOUs with Canada’s international partners;
  • Canada’s presence at each regular annual consultation with the international commissions;
  • Ongoing bilateral meetings and informal consultations with our partners;
  • The frequency of calls from our partners to collaborate with Canada on joint proposals.

Activity 2:  Demonstrating foreign state compliance with the terms of international agreements.

Evidence:

The broad scope of IFC enforcement and surveillance activities (which is well documented on the DFO website) demonstrates Canada’s commitment to foreign state compliance.  This includes joint patrol collaboration with the US and Spain which reinforces bilateral relations and the exchange of best practices.  Canada’s closure of ports to vessels on the IUU fishing lists of the NAFO and ICCAT commissions is a further attestation to its commitment to foreign state compliance. 

IUU fishing instruments and strategies

The FOA Committee on Fisheries (COFI) developed and approved an International Plan of Action on IUU fishing (IPOA-IUU fishing) in 2001.  The IPOA-IUU fishing is a voluntary instrument identifying means to deter and eliminate IUU fishing through a series of measures meant to be implemented by all States, RFMOs and regional integration organizations.

Program documentation included Canada’s National Plan of Action on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (NPOA-IUU fishing) developed in 2005. The plan elaborates and recommends solutions to Canada’s IUU fishing concerns with respect to overcapacity, lack of effective flag State control by both contracting parties and non contracting parties and non compliance with no consequences by contracting parties to RFMOs.  The European Commission was the first to submit its NPOA-IUU fishing in 2002 with 12 other countries following from 2004 to 2008. 5

Canada is active in monitoring, control and surveillance efforts undertaken by NAFO and ICCAT in the Atlantic Ocean and by NPAFC in the Pacific Ocean. Canada invests $30 million annually for aerial surveillance and at sea inspection patrols in the NAFO Regulatory Area, which includes approximately 775,000 square nautical miles of fishable grounds outside the 200 mile limits of coastal States in the Northwest.

Activity 3: Contributing to the development of international instruments and agreements to satisfactorily protect share fish stocks.

Evidence

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a comprehensive legal instrument that establishes the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) which provides the legal basis for coastal States’ jurisdiction over the 200 nautical miles adjacent to coastlines, their sedentary fish stocks and all non living resources to the edge of the continent shelf.

In 2005, a workshop on the legal systems of Canada and Portugal dealing with fisheries violations was held in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Legal advisors and officials from both countries presented each other’s judicial procedures for infractions. Since 2005, Canada has participated or led workshops, led the development of new agreements and hosted capacity building conferences.

Activity 4:  Participating as member in international commissions is effective in achieving the expected outcomes for the conservation of fisheries stocks.

Evidence: 

Canada attaches great importance to meaningful discussion of the yearly informal gathering of the UNFSA parties where lessons learned are exchanged and dialogue between State Parties and Non State Parties on how to ensure greater partnerships on capacity building. Membership and active participation in UNFSA and other international commissions is paramount for Canada.

Based on program documentation and memoranda to the minister, international commissions are one of the three most critical activities of international fisheries conservation, the other two being science and enforcement.  Commission membership is critical to Canada’s international role. Expected outcomes of Canada’s membership include the following:

  • Promote combating IUU fishing;
  • Promote adoption of management measures that adhere to scientific advice;
  • Strengthen MCS measures;
  • Promote stronger roles for RFMOs and their Secretariats;
  • Establish new bilateral relationships to generate cooperation with other countries;
  • Maintain/strengthen existing relationships;
  • Protect Canada’s sovereignty and interests;
  • Ensure RFMO members commit to, implement and comply with, management measures.

The engagements of the Ambassador and the coordination of the Canadian delegation has strengthened Canada’s position as international leader in the management of RFMOs.
Membership in international commissions is critical for Canada to ensure harmonization of measures across the RFMOs (such as the 5 tuna RFMOs) to avoid duplication and to increase cost efficiency.  As a member of these commissions, Canada has a lead role to play in the negotiations for the creation of new RFMOs.  
 
Global cooperation through the United Nations has resulted in the development of a number of treaties that are the foundation of international fisheries governance and the related activities carried out in fishing regions worldwide by RFMOs.

Any nation state engaged in the fishery of a highly migratory stock is encouraged to join the RFMO that manages the stock. Not covered in the UNFSA is an obligation for non members to abide by the conservation measures called for under RFMO membership.

The UNFSA enhances RFMO mandates through UNCLOS and focuses international fisheries management on the RFMO as an institution that is used to strengthen cooperation to conserve stocks for ongoing harvest to the maximum sustainable yield.6

Challenges of RFMOs

Based on a literature review, “The difficulties associated with reaching agreements under a management regime that is set up to protect state sovereignty cannot be underestimated. Coupled with the impossibility of complete knowledge in fisheries science, maximum harvest for immediate profit tends to overshadow the precautionary principle of long term conservation.” 7

RFMOs make two kinds of fishery management decisions:  biological conservation decisions including Total Allowable Catch (TAC), fish size limitations and adoption of measures relation to fishing, and allocation decisions including allocation of TAC to the membership, limitations on fleet size and access limitation.

The politics of RFMO management are very complicated, not only due to the differing needs of each nation (such as developing and developed nations), but also from the political agendas between nations that encompass other issues beyond fishing that may be behind the scenes (e.g. trading between nations before the vote of a new regulation or quota). The RFMO structure also allows nations to object or abstain from management measures, exacerbating the problem.

RFMOs do work when nations are able to agree that a stock is in trouble and that stronger management is needed.” 

Strong governance of the high seas through RFMOs is integral to reducing illegal fishing activities.8  However, management of the high seas by RFMOs is inconsistent and most high seas areas are not covered by RFMOs who have authority to manage deep sea bottom fisheries.  Bottom trawl fishing in these regions is by definition unregulated high seas fishing.  There is also the ruling that under international law, a country is not bound by the decisions of an RFMO to which it does not belong. 

Although RFMO member countries can apply some sanctions on uncooperative non member countries such as trade restrictions and import bans, the lack of control over non member state fleets is an enormous loophole in the RFMO scheme.

Membership in international commissions is critical for Canada to ensure harmonization of measures across the RFMOs to avoid duplication and to increase cost efficiency.  As a member of these commissions, Canada has a voice and a role to play to ensure compliance with MCS measures and to ensure management measures are based on scientific advice and are consistent with the precautionary approach.

The Ambassador of International Fisheries is actively engaged in generating pressure to ensure RFMO members commit and implement relevant fisheries management measures; this includes bilateral meetings to generate cooperation with other countries and strengthen relationships [International Affairs]  The Ambassador’s role is also key to promote engagement of RFMO Secretariats to centralize VMS, the RFMO-run Observer program and real time reporting.

Key areas of concern for Canada are:

  • Ensuring management measures are based on scientific advice and consistent with the precautionary approach;
  • Implement controls capacity reduction to ensure actual total catch, fishing effort level and capacity are in line with available fishing opportunities to ensure sustainability of resources.

1.4  Performance – Efficiency

Finding:

  • IFC could improve its efficiency with respect to the monitoring and reporting of its activities and outputs by improving their planning processes.

Evidence:

The IAD was recently reorganized to integrate sector activities for international engagements and to increase coherence and coordination across the Department and with OGDs and stakeholders.  The re-alignment has streamlined management of the program reducing positions and incorporating prioritization of international engagements as part of the business planning process. 

One of the key functions of the IAD is to integrate the collaboration between DFO sectors, NGO partners and beneficiaries.  Key informants for the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty have assessed this integration as somewhat good to very good.  Comments included the need for more collaboration and greater operational expertise as its relates to the Treaty itself and greater advocacy of the Ambassador’s role as it was felt that this was not well understood.  The informants reported that the Treaty’s activities have occurred as planned due to the proper and diligent planning process, such as negotiations and the annual bilateral meetings and strong collaboration between the Pacific region and the IAD in decision making.  Efficiency measures included restricting meeting attendance to matters of Treaty implementation issues and for the exchange of data.  One informant suggested it may be time to increase the budget in order to add a Customs representative at the bilateral meetings.

A current Performance Measurement Framework and Strategy is in development to support the assessment of efficiency and economy of the activities and outputs of the IFC Program. The IAD has identified further opportunities for efficiencies such as rationalized participation in Commissions and cost sharing arrangements among Parties of the Commission.

The PMF/PM Strategy will be a critical tool to ensure that the resource commitment for IFC activities is adequate to effectively support the current and future international obligations of Canada and to ensure Canada delivers on its commitments.

1.5  Performance - Economy

Finding:

  • There is a risk that the delivery of the IFC Program will be impacted if IFC resource commitment is not aligned with current and upcoming international engagements.

Evidence:

In measuring cost effectiveness and economies of scale, one must keep in mind that for international fisheries, international relations, collaboration and treaty related activities and outputs are difficult to quantify as they involve ongoing interaction with many levels of government officials throughout the year and may not achieve result in the immediate or intermediate term. The level of activity is also driven by the amount of fishing activity. Every season varies in terms of the number of a specific species caught and the number of vessels permitted to harvest.

It would therefore not be appropriate to infer that a specific investment made by Canada either for international relations or enforcement can be attributed to an outcome that was derived from the collaboration of several international partners.

Benchmarking may be the closest measure one could apply to determine if the delivery of the IFC Program is cost effective. 

Based on the evaluation findings, IAD has implemented cost rationalization measures to ensure the IFC Program is managed in the most cost effective manner.   IAD is also exploring further cost saving approaches.

1.6  Recommendations

It is recommended that the International Affairs Directorate:

Recommendation 1 Continue exploring new partnerships with countries that are emerging as key actors such as China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea.
Recommendation 2 Pursue greater cooperation with CFIA and CBSA for the implementation of the Catch Documentation Scheme.
Recommendation 3 Continue to engage in international fora to sustain its bilateral and multilateral partnerships and to increase joint collaboration initiatives with international partners and OGDs, such as the potential MOU with CFIA and CBSA.
Recommendation 4 Continue to engage in negotiations for the creation for new RFMOs with a view to championing the best practices of RFMOs and developing new strategies to address capacity and compliance issues for the developing countries.
Recommendation 5 Promote Canada’s position on strengthening roles for RFMOs and their Secretariats with particular focus on harmonization of MCS measures across RFMOs.
Recommendation 6 Develop and finalize the new PMF/PM Strategy as a priority to ensure the strategy can be operationalized in the near future with an efficient evaluation and reporting system; develop a Corporate Risk Profile to ensure mitigation strategies are in place to manage the program in a risk-based manner; and IAD should continue to explore opportunities for further efficiencies such as rationalized participation in Commissions and more effective cost sharing arrangements among Parties of the Commissions.

2.0  Introduction

An evaluation of the International Fisheries Conservation Program (IFC) was conducted in 2009-2010 to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the program.  The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which the IFC demonstrates achievement of expected outcomes in a cost efficient and effective manner.  The timeframe for the evaluation is from 2004/05 to 2009/10.  The evaluation was carried out from December 2009 to May 2010 in the National Capital Region (NCR) and in the Regions. 

2.1 IFC Background

The International Fisheries Conservation initiative is an integrated program created to proactively address weaknesses in international governance of fisheries, support healthy ocean ecosystems, protect Canada’s economic and environmental interests, and continue to position Canada as a global leader in high seas issues.

The IFC Program dates back to 2004/05. In response to weak regional management of fisheries, Canada launched a 3 year strategy to initiate reforms in international fisheries with special emphasis on deterring overfishing in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.  The strategy supported key ongoing commitments of the Government to combat overfishing on Canada’s coasts and aligned with the core priorities identified in the October 2007 Speech from the Throne.  These were:

  • international leadership,
  • sustainable fisheries,
  • preserving regional interests and
  • protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.

The strategy also responded to pressures from the House and Senate Standing Committees on Fisheries and Oceans for further sustained action such as the introduction of port state measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The following funding was allocated in 2004-05 through the International Governance Strategy for the development of the interim integrated strategy:

  • $13.6M to DFO C&P and the CCG to carry out enforcement activities in Northwest Atlantic Ocean (and an internal reallocation of $2.7M)
  • $4M to DFO Science to help build understanding of fisheries and oceans resources, enabling improved science-based decisions and policies; and
  • $1.1 M for DFAIT to provide legal and advocacy support and the creation of the position of Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation.

In 2007, following Cabinet review and the success of the strategy, permanent funding
was provided for the IFC Program and the Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation was
appointed.  This appointment has contributed significantly to stronger bilateral relations
with countries such as the EU and Nordic states and enhanced advocacy for Canada. 

In 2008, permanent funding was provided for the IFC Program and the Ambassador for
Fisheries Conservation was appointed.   This appointment has contributed significantly to
stronger bilateral relations with countries such as the European Union (EU) and Nordic
States and enhanced advocacy for Canada. 

The International Fisheries Conservation received the following permanent funding for the period 2007-08 to 2009-2010. 

Spending Profile of International Fisheries Conservation*

($000)

2007-08

2008-09

2009-2010

2010-11

 

Planned

Actual

Planned

Actual

Planned

Actual

Planned

O&M

  6613.2

  7890.7

  7317.5

  7679.2

   7118,1

  7052.6

  6090.6

Salary

  3433.9

  2997.8

  3140.9

  3568.2

   4330.8

  4118.4

  4494.4

G&C

 NA

      75.0

  NA

      90.0

  NA

    140.0

  NA

 

10047.1

10963.5

10458.4

11337.4

11448.9

11171.0

10585.0

Note: *Included are commission fees approximately $4M fixed costs which fluctuate with exchange rate, but does not include directed funding to related programs. 

The IFC Program was created Canada to initiate reforms in international fisheries and to combat overfishing in support of federal priorities for international leadership, sustainable fisheries, preserving regional interests and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs).

2.2 IFC Program Background

2.2.1 IFC Governance

The IFC falls principally under the mandate of the International Affairs Directorate (IAD). 
Through multilateral, regional and bilateral engagements, the IFC Program promotes and protects the interests of Canadians by ensuring access for Canadians to fish resources managed internationally.  The IFC Program promotes and influences sustainable regional fisheries management and healthy global marine ecosystems, and contributes to a stable international trade regime for Canadian fish and seafood products.  This is achieved through a coordinated and proactive approach, building broad and constructive relationships with international partners based upon common goals and strategies.  Mechanisms for engagement include the internal coordination of DFO sectors and regions in international activities, in particular the linkage of domestic imperatives with international objectives.

IFC appears in the 2010-11 Program Activity Architecture (PAA) as a sub-activity entitled International Fisheries Conservation under the program activity Fisheries and Aquaculture Management.  However, the organization was significantly changed subsequent to the 2010-11 PAA in September 2009 as the result of the merger of two international units within DFO – International Fisheries Directorate and Integration Policy Sector - to create the International Affairs Directorate (IAD).  It is expected that this amalgamated program will appear as a new and distinct program activity in DFO’s 2011-12 PAA.  The Program description and performance measurement framework for International Fisheries Conversation have been expanded to reflect the newer and augmented program.

Priority issues for the new IAD organization are (RPP 2010-11):

  • International fisheries management: well functioning RFMOs, strengthened ecosystem-based and precautionary approaches and advancement of Canadian interests;
  • Enhancing market access:  bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations (Canada-EU, WTO subsidies); emerging markets for fish and seafood, WTO seals challenge and traceability and eco-certification requirements;
  • Global fisheries and oceans governance: IUU fishing, science-based approaches to protect marine biodiversity and arctic governance (Arctic Ocean Review);
  • Bilateral management:  manage US transboundary issues through treaties, agreements and diplomacy; development of new bilateral relationships with key emerging countries; and strategic bilateral collaboration to advance specific international objectives.
  • Other ongoing priorities include international commitments and obligations (UNCLOS, WTO, UNFA, RFMO, CITES, CBD).

A draft performance measurement framework was developed in 2010 for the IFC with the following outcomes:

  • Implementation of reforms in NAFO, including revised NAFO Convention and measures to protect VMEs in the NAFO Regulatory Area;
  • Improved management in other RFMOs, reinforced by internationally accepted flag, port and market-State measures to reduce overfishing and IUU fishing;
  • Enhanced international monitoring, control and surveillance capacity;
  • International standards for identifying biodiversity hotspots and bio-geographic zoning to reflect Canadian approaches and interests;
  • Mechanisms to safeguard high-seas biodiversity while enabling sustainable fisheries;
  • Ongoing agenda for improvement in oceans governance and implementation of existing international instruments (UNFSA);
  • Better knowledge of marine ecosystem dynamics in the North Atlantic and elsewhere to facilitate modern management principles;
  • Integrated and proactive approach to protecting Canada’s offensive and defensive interests in international fishers and oceans governance.

2.2.2 IFC Partners

One of the key activities of IAD is the coordination of a number of DFO sectors and other federal departments for support to the international fisheries activities and the achievement of international fisheries outcomes.  The following table highlights the contribution of partners to international fisheries activities.

Activities

Partners

Outcomes

Surveillance/Enforcement 

DFO/Conservation & Protection

  • Compliance with International fisheries management regulations
  • IUU fishing is reduced

DFO/CCG (fleet readiness)

DND (aerial surveillance)

International Positions

DFO/Fisheries Resource Management
DFO/Aquatic Ecosystem Science, Science for Fisheries Resources, Ocean Climate and Integrated Management

  • Canada’s interests are protected
  • Decisions are based on scientific advice
  • and reflect domestic management approaches
  • Improved fisheries and oceans governance

DFAIT – Environmental Law

Management of RFMOs

DFO/Regions

  • Fisheries and oceans governance is improved
  • Constructive relationships advance Canada’s advocacy efforts

Multilateral/Bilateral Agreements

DFAIT – Ambassador

EC lead on marine issues

International Market Access

AAFC (Seafood Value chain)

  • Market access improved

2.3 Purpose of the Evaluation

The IFC Program has not been evaluated since its creation.  In line with the Policy on Evaluation, all programs must be evaluated within a five year cycle.   The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which the IFC demonstrates achievement of expected outcomes in a cost efficient and effective manner.  The time frame covered in the evaluation is from 2004/05 to 2009/10. The evaluation was carried out from December 2009 to May 2010 in the National Capital Region (NCR) and in the Regions.

This evaluation addressed value for money by including clear and valid conclusions about the relevance and performance of the IFC Program.  The following table highlights the core issues of Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency to report on the delivery of the program and the related evaluation questions from which the findings were derived. 
 

International Fisheries Conservation (IFC)
RELEVANCE

Issue #1:  Alignment with Government and departmental priorities

To what extent is the IFC aligned with federal government and DFO priorities?

Issue #2:  Alignment with Government and departmental roles and responsibilities

To what extent is the IFC aligned with the role and responsibilities for the federal government and DFO?

Issue #3:  Continued Need for Program

To what extent does the IFC continues to address a demonstrable need?

EFFECTIVENESS

Issue #4: Achievement of Expected Outcomes

To what extent is the IFC achieving its expected outcomes (immediate, intermediate) including the linkage and contribution of outputs to outcomes?

EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

Issue #5:  Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

To what extent is the IFC managed in an efficient and cost effective manner?

2.4 Evaluation Methodology

Since this is the first evaluation of the IFC Program, the collection of a substantial
amount of information was necessary to provide for a good understanding of the 
program and its successes and challenges.   Multiple lines of evidence were used for the
evaluation.  These included:

  • Review of literature, files and program documentation;
  • Qualitative data from case studies for NAFO and the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty;
  • Qualitative data from key informant interviews at HQ and in the regions.

The literature reviewed included articles and reports prepared by various authors, on the
challenges of RFMO management, the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty, ICCAT as an international instrument, NAFO and Best Practices for RFMOs.  Research of DFO and RFMO websites provided descriptive information on the governance of the organizations, performance reviews and annual reports, proceedings of meetings, results of planned collaboration at international fora, workshops and data exchange systems to enhance monitoring, control and surveillance measures.  Program documentation included, the  IAD Business Plan for 2010-2011, various speeches, DFO Program Activity Architecture, citation reports and media press releases.

The evaluation applied triangulation which involves using multiple methods and data sources to eliminate bias and to improve the validity of evaluation findings (Miles & Huberman, 1984).    The findings for the two case studies for NAFO and the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty and the qualitative data from interviews within DFO were triangulated with the literature and program documents collected to provide for evidential data on the results and impacts of outcomes and challenges and to confirm the interview findings.  

Since this is the first evaluation of the IFC Program, the collection of a substantial amount of information was necessary to provide for a good understanding of the program and its successes and challenges.

Limitations and caveat

The evaluation team experienced limitations affecting the scope of this evaluation due to the unavailability of some key informants for interviews and the lack of a fully operationalized Performance Measurement Strategy, a Corporate Risk Profile and a systematic data collection system for IFC components.

The limitations on interviews were in part due to the key informants’ compressed travelling commitments within the timelines for delivery of the evaluation; the interview plan included the Ambassador of Fisheries and several NGOs as well as bilateral partners such as the EU and US representatives, however these key informants were not available at the time of the evaluation interview phase.

These factors should be considered when assessing the findings of this evaluation.   

3.0  Findings and Recommendations

3.1 Program Relevance


3.1.1 TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC ALIGNED WITH GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND DFO/CCG PRIORITIES?

Findings:

  • IFC activities support priorities such as international leadership, Canada’s sovereign rights in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), expanding international trade and strengthened Regional Management Fisheries Organisations.
  • IFC supports the DFO/CCG Business Plan 2010-11.

Evidence:

A review of strategic planning documents for the new IAD (2010) supports the alignment of the IFC with Government of Canada priorities.  The IFC Program contributes to the Government of Canada long-term priorities of strengthening Canada’s economic union and expanding international trade.  The relevance of this program’s trade related activity was underscored in the 2010 Speech from the Throne with a focus on aggressive pursuit of free trade with a range of bilateral partners.  This is important to Canada and the seafood sector as 85% of fish landed by Canadian fishers is exported.  Canada is a net exporter of fish and sea food and the eighth largest in the world by value in 2007.

The Oceans Act has broadened DFO’s role requiring the Department to participate in international fora to promote stewardship and sustainable development.   Program documentation identifies international governance as a DFO priority since 2005-06.  The broader program has contributed to the core outcomes of the departmental priority international governance and strengthened RFMOs, markets for seal products and NAFO, as reported in the DPR, RPP 2010.  The IFC mandate aligns with the DFO/CCG Business Plan 2010-11 and priorities.

The IFC Program was created to initiate reforms in international fisheries and to combat overfishing in support of federal priorities. The organisation responsible for the IFC Program has been reorganized to integrate all international activities under one Directorate, the International Affairs Directorate (IAD).  The IAD mandate supports DFO/CCG international commitments which are derived from its mandate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, the Oceans Act, the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The IFC mandate aligns with the DFO/CCG Business Plan 2010-11.

The IAD is responsible for the negotiation and administration of international treaties and
agreements related to fisheries and marine mammal conservation, the conduct of bilateral
and multilateral fisheries relations with other countries, advocacy and the formulation and
presentation of international fisheries advice to the Minister. The IAD also conducts advocacy campaigns with priority countries to further Canadian objectives and interests in international fora.  The review of program documentation and interview feedback provided the following synopsis of IAD activities in support of  DFO’s priorities.

Priority - RFMOs -  Canada’s major commitment to strengthening RFMOs includes participating in RFMO meetings and conferences to promote tuna sustainability and to ensure RFMOs in which Canada is a member manage tuna stocks in a sustainable manner. Canada was a major contributor in the development of best practices for RFMOs to strengthen their governance. 

An important component of the IFC Program is the departmental participation on behalf of Canada’s fish and seafood sector in all bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. 

Efforts to combat overfishing and IUU fishing and measures to protect oceans ecosystems are intended to safeguard resources that provide important economic benefits to Canadians.  Negotiations at RFMOS secure quota allocations and access for Canadians which in turn promotes economic growth.

Priority - Markets for seal products - To ensure open international markets for  Canadian seal products, the IAD team is actively engaged in advocacy for seal hunters to ensure adopted regulations in foreign markets do not prohibit exportation of seal products to the EU. 

The 13th North Atlantic Fisheries Ministers Conference in 2008 was an opportunity for Canada to advocate for and successfully advance its interests on the world stage while playing a leadership role within the international community regarding the proposed European Union ban on seal products.  The Ministers also discussed at length ways to get tougher on those who engage in illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU fishing.) 9

Priority - NAFO - The key informants for the NAFO case study were positive on Canada’s progress and the Canadian initiatives agreed to at NAFO to ensure NAFO fisheries are managed in a sustainable manner.  One informant commented that “the exposure by Canada of non-conforming and illegal acts within the NAFO RA has led to changes in behaviour by some NAFO members and improved NAFO’s transparency and level of collaboration.  It has also engaged the interest of some powerful international NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).”

Based on program documentation, other countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Russia are involved in vessel monitoring and observation in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA).  The compliance of fishing vessels in the NRA has visibly increased since 2004 with a marked reduction in cases of serious citations.  Canada’s presence on the water and leadership in strengthening NAFO’s compliance and enforcement measures has helped contribute to increased compliance as evidenced in the table below:

ENFORCEMENT EFFORT AND CITATIONS

 

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Sea Patrol Days

445

675

663

671

518

508

476

Inspections

158

241

200

255

189

188

161

Overall Citations

22

15

30

23

11

8

12

Serious Citations

NA

8

20

9

1

0

4

In 2007, serious infractions in the NAFO RA were at a historic low due to tough new rules brought in by the Canadian government.  This success continued into 2008 with inspections reporting on infractions at the mid year point.  10

One key informant commented that Canada’s ongoing support for the principle of science is evidenced by its’ participation in the Science Council committees and the use of Canada’s research vessel surveys by other countries to help conduct stock assessments.

Conclusion: 

The IFC Program is aligned with Government of Canada and DFO/CCG priorities.

3.1.2  TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC ALIGNED WITH GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND DFO/CCG ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES?

Finding: 

  • IAD supports the DFO/CCG international commitments which are derived from its mandate from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, the Oceans Act, the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

Evidence: 

Based on program documentation and strategic plans, it is the federal government’s role to engage in international negotiations, international relationship building and maintenance and ratification of international treaties.    Due to the specialized and technical nature of the majority of these negotiations specific to fisheries and marine ecosystems, the negotiation and implementation of international fisheries treaties rest primarily with DFO”.

The negotiation and implementation of international fisheries treaties rest primarily with DFO.  The management and protection of fisheries resources falls under the mandate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and is governed by four primary legislative instruments covering both fisheries and oceans resource management.  These are:

  • The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, which establishes the powers, duties, functions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and extends to all matters relating to seacoast and inland fisheries, fishing and marine sciences and the coordination of policies and programs of the Government of Canada respecting oceans
  • The Oceans Act, which describes Canada’s maritime zones and its jurisdiction in these zones, gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada the legal authority to develop an ocean management strategy
  • The Fisheries Act, which provides the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with the legislative authority to manage and regulate the  fishery and to enforce the Act and regulations made under the Act;
  • The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act which sets out the Minister’s authority to manage access by  foreign fishing vessels in Canadian fisheries waters, on the continental shelf of Canada and, for limited purposes, in the NAFO Regulatory Area.  The Act and Regulations also implement the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) and the Convention for the Conservation of Anadramous Stocks in the North Pacific (NPAFC) and provide a framework for implementation of other international fisheries treaties to which Canada is a party.

The Oceans Act has broadened DFO’s role requiring the Department to participate in international fora to promote stewardship and sustainable development.  To achieve greater coherence and less overlap in its international activities, the Department completed a National Plan of Action (NPOA) revising its International Business Development Strategy.11

Section 91 of the Canadian Constitution identifies matters pertaining to trade and commerce as well as seacoast and inland fisheries as within the exclusive legislative authority of the federal government.  Membership in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations or arrangements is generally open only  to national governments and an element of the IFC program is a result of Canada’s legal obligations and commitments to cooperation with other countries in relation to high seas fisheries (e.g. through treaties, agreements, partnerships and MOUs).

Conclusion:

The IAD mandate aligns with the Government of Canada and DFO roles and responsibilities.

3.1.3 IS THERE A CONTINUED DEMONSTRABLE NEED FOR THE IFC?

Finding:

  • The IFC Program must continue in order to protect Canada’s economic and environmental interests and to position Canada as a global leader in high seas issues.

Evidence: 

Key informants expressed that without the IFC Program, Canada would not meet its international commitments and there could be potential political fall-out.  This is particularly critical for NAFO for which Canada must continue its enforcement efforts to protect its interests as the commission’s efforts alone would not be sufficient.

Based on a review of the literature, the need for international cooperation in managing fisheries continues to be of vital importance, both due to the increasing importance of high-seas fisheries, and due to mobility of many stocks across the beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of coastal countries.  About 60% of the oceans lie outside of EEZs, and exploitation of these regions has increased from 9% in 1950 to 15% in 2003.12  In addition, transboundary fish stocks (fish that straddle the waters under the jurisdiction of two or more states),  highly migratory stocks (marine species that travel great distances through the world’s oceans as listed in Annex I of UNCLOS)  and straddling stocks (fish that straddle the limit of waters subject to national jurisdiction and the high seas) require international cooperation.13

The task of the IFC Program is becoming more complex with the move toward new approaches in international fisheries management, such as the “precautionary approach” and “ecosystems management.”  Under the precautionary approach, according to the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, Principle 15:  “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.14

This puts the onus on nations’ programs such as the IFC Program to take responsibility for management, despite the lack of clear direction from science.  Further challenges are added by a move toward ecosystems management, where organisms and their environment are viewed as a type of network, linked to each other in complex patterns.15  There is a need for the IFC Program to continue and meet these new challenges.   

Key informants have commented that the lost opportunity of participating in international fora would result in a loss of influence over international treaties and agreements and the cascading effect of a negative impact on Canada’s economic opportunities, trade relationships and the value of exports.

Additionally, environmental issues increasingly have an impact on markets and Canada endeavours to renew its policies to support harvesters and allow them greater flexibility in managing their enterprises.  Given that approximately 85% of fish caught in Canadian waters are exported, Canadian fish harvesters are susceptible to price fluctuations created by the unpredictable supply of IUU fish products in foreign markets.   IUU fish can depress the price of Canadian fish products, in some cases to unprofitable levels.16

Based on the literature review, the FAO estimated that IUU fishing accounted for about 30% of all fishing activity worldwide in 2000.  Independent research from 2005 concluded that the global annual value of IUU fishing activities was upwards of USD $9 billion (not accounting for the unquantifiable costs of IUU fishing, including a reduction in food security, decreased economic stability and loss of biodiversity). 

There continues to be challenges related to the unsustainable management of international fisheries that are important to Canadians (e.g. bluefin tuna, worth $13M in landed value in 2008) and in developing strong governance mechanisms to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) on the high seas.  There are merging challenges that need to be met, including enhancing international oceans governance to address the increasing variability due to effects of climate change on the oceans, and developing stable transparent bilateral, regional and global trade regimes in the face of unilateral trade measures with other countries that threaten Canadian fish and seafood exports.

Conclusion:

There is a continued need for the IFC Program.  Canada must take responsibility for the management of international fisheries and address the challenges inherent with emerging issues such as ecosystems management and developing countries.  The IFC Program is a sound and appropriate mechanism to deliver on this commitment.

3.2  Program Effectiveness


TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC ACHIEVING ITS EXPECTED OUTCOMES (IMMEDIATE AND INTERMEDIATE) INCLUDING THE LINKAGE AND CONTRIBUTION TO OUTPUTS TO OUTCOMES?

Four key interdependent activities were assessed to report on these outcomes.  They include:

  • creating broad and constructive relationships through common goals and strategies with international partners;
  • demonstrating foreign state compliance with the terms of international agreements;
  • contributing to the development of international instruments and agreements to satisfactorily protect and share fish stocks;
  • participating as member in international commissions effective in achieving the expected outcomes for the conservation of fisheries stocks.

These activities are interdependent as the international commissions provide the forum for many of the relationships to come to fruition and the common purpose of foreign state compliance is actioned collectively by these same actors through the development of international instruments and agreements. 

Evidence for the achievement of outcomes is described below for each activity, although each activity supports common outcomes.

3.2.1  TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC CREATING BROAD AND CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH COMMON GOALS AND STRATEGIES WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS?

Finding: 

  • The IAD plays an extensive role in creating broad and constructive relationships with national and international partners. 

Evidence: 

Based on DFO’s website and key informant interviews, through diplomatic relations and the role of the Ambassador, Canada has entered into both formal and informal arrangements and agreements on fisheries, oceans and with a number of nations.  The IAD manages the following treaties and MOUs:

  • US-Canada Albacore Tuna Treaty
  • US-Canada Pacific Hake Treaty
  • US–Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
  • 1994 Canada-France Proces-Verbal
  • NAFO Convention
  • ICCAT
  • IATTC
  • WCPFC
  • Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery
  • North Pacific Anadromous Fish Stocks Convention (NPAFC)
  • NASCO
  • NEAFC
  • Canada-Portugal MOU (2005) (ongoing exchange of information and documentation)
  • Canada-Russia MOU (2007) (joint research projects on wild and farmed fish stocks and sharing of port landings information, statistics and joint vessel inspections on the high seas)
  • Canada-Spain MOU (2007) (joint research projects, commercial exchanges)
  • Canada-Norway MOU (2008) (advance collaborative activities to ensure conservation and sustainable management of fisheries)

IAD also manages and maintains bilateral partnerships with the following organizations:

  • Australian Fisheries Management Authority
  • British Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  • European Union Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
  • New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs
  • Norway Seafood Safety and Resource and Aquaculture Management
  • Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  • US National Marine Fisheries Service
  • Russian Federal Fisheries Agency
  • Portuguese Ministry for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries

The IAD also engages in multilateral partnerships through the following consultative fora:

  • APEC (Fisheries Working Group and the Marine Resource Conservation Working Group);
  • High Seas Task Force (established in 2003 by fisheries ministers from Canada, the UK, Australia, Chile, Namibia and New Zealand and International NGOs, to develop a plan to combat IUU fishing. Now disbanded (2006), members continue to collaborate to implement the recommendations;
  • OECD (Committee on Fisheries on economic and policy aspects);
  • UN FAO (Committee on Fisheries); and
  • WTO (Tariffs and duties on seafood and provision of fishing subsidies).

Program documentation on international fisheries and DFO’s website provide details of the following initiatives undertaken by Canada to maintain broad and constructive relationships with international fisheries counterparts.

In 2004, the Government of Canada announced significant investments to enhance compliance monitoring and diplomatic actions to address overfishing in the NRA, as part of a new federal strategy to combat global overfishing and to improve international fisheries governance.

The workshops are another example of Canada’s actions to implement this strategy.  In 2005, a workshop on the legal systems of Canada and Portugal dealing with fisheries violations was held in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Legal advisors and officials from both countries presented each other’s judicial procedures for infractions.

Since 2005, Canada has participated or led other workshops, led the development of new agreements and hosted capacity building conferences.  These included:

  • Canada NAFO Inspectors Workshop in Brussels (2005) 
  • Amendments to the Resolution for VMEs (2006)
  • Hosting the 5th Best Practices Conference (2007)
  • Contributing in a lead role to the development of the Fishery Sustainability Checklist (2007)
  • Organizing capacity building workshops with WCPFC for the Yellowfin Tuna (2008)
  • Hosting the Expert Workshop on Flag State Responsibilities in Vancouver at the

Canada’s lead role developing new agreements, providing workshops and hosting or chairing capacity building conferences and various committees has advanced Canada’s influence in international fisheries and facilitated the creation of new partnerships and sustainment of existing ones.  Key informants reported that opportunities exist for IAD to pursue new partnerships with countries that are emerging as key actors such as China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea.

DFO key informants agree that Canada is very effective in creating constructive relationships with international partners.  Building strong partnerships worldwide with other governments and stakeholders on fisheries and oceans issues enables Canada to work with like minded countries and organizations to combat over fishing and to improve global management of fish stocks and oceans ecosystems.  For example, Canada’s efforts in working with other countries paid off and changes to the Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement with the US were successfully ratified to help ensure the long term sustainability of Pacific salmon stocks.

Key informants for the case studies reported a collegial and professional relationship between Canada and the Tuna Advisory Board which in turn has a positive effect on how the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty is managed.  This positive relationship is also shared between Canada and its’ British Columbia Tuna Fishermen’s Association (BCTFA) members and their respective Canadian tuna vessels in complying with Canada’s obligations under the Treaty.  Finally, informants agreed that it is essential for Canada and its partners to maintain close working relationships in order to eliminate illegal fishing activities.

Additional initiatives are provided below. 

NAFO International Survey

Over the summer of 2009, and the coming summer in 2010, Canada will continue to partner with Spain, with participation from the UK, US and Russia to conduct a groundbreaking international survey of the largely unknown deep water terrain of the Continental Shelf off Canada’s East Coast; this includes the Flemish Cap of Newfoundland and Labrador, and south of the Grand Banks.  This survey is a two year undertaking, the largest of its kind, in the NAFO RA and is primarily taking place onboard the Spanish research vessel Miguel Oliver.  If the research identifies new aspects of VMEs not already understood, NAFO Contracting Parties are expected to review protection measures to determine if further measures are required.  Complementary studies are also taking place onboard Spain’s Vizconde de Eza vessel and Canada’s CCS Hudson.17

Exchange of IUU Vessel Lists

Canada generally co-sponsors UN General Resolutions on the Law of the Sea and on Sustainable Fisheries. Canada is a responsible member of various RFMOs.  Canada encourages collaborative efforts to reduce IUU fishing and has agreed not to allow entry to vessels on the IUU fishing lists of the NAFO or the ICCAT.  These IUU vessel lists18 are key tools for combating IUU fishing globally and several RFMOs, listed below, have agreed to share their lists. 

  • Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
  • Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
  • Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
  • International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna
  • Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
  • Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission
  • Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition
  • Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries
  • South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization
  • Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living resources

Joint Enforcement Patrols

Efforts to build constructive relationships with international partners were equally successful at sea with joint patrols19 undertaken with the US, EU and Norway.  In August 2008, Canada and the United States concluded a series of successful joint enforcement patrols in the NAFO Regulatory Area. Canadian NAFO Inspectors were joined by U.S. Coast Guard officers on board Canadian vessels during patrols of the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA) with the goal of making current inspection practices even stronger.  The joint patrols began in early June, and saw a different U.S. Coast Guard officer join Canadian NAFO inspectors in four different patrols. This type of joint-enforcement gives officers from both countries a chance to meet face-to-face, demonstrate best practices, and work together to discover new techniques that can help the fight against illegal fishing.

“The United States takes illegal fishing operations very seriously and believes in strengthening high seas enforcement by working with DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard,” said Commander Edward J. Marohn, Deputy Chief of Enforcement Branch with the First (U.S.) Coast Guard District. “These joint patrols allow us to work better together and reduce overfishing not only in NAFO, but in other areas as well.”

Potential for New Partnerships

Documentation was reviewed on the informal fisheries consultations with the United States take place annually to discuss issues of NAFO, IATTC, WCPFC and tuna RFMOs in part, and global fisheries issues such as FAO IPOA.20 [International Affairs]

DFO and DFAIT key informants reported the following indicators in support of Canada’s success in creating broad constructive relationships with its international partners:

  • The MOUs with four of Canada’s international partners;
  • Canada’s presence at each regular annual consultation with the commissions;
  • Ongoing bilateral meetings and informal consultations with our partners;
  • The frequency of calls from our partners to collaborate with Canada on joint proposals.

[Solicitor-Client Privilege]

Key informants for the case study of the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty agreed that Canada has a strong working relationship with the American representatives [International Affairs]  Due to climate changes in Canadian waters, the tuna are migrating to American waters and there are few American vessels (5-6) fishing in Canada.   [International Affairs]

Conclusion:

In order to eliminate illegal fishing activities on the high seas, it is essential for Canada and its partners to maintain close working relationships.  Canada’s lead role developing new agreements, providing workshops and hosting or chairing capacity building conferences and various committees has advanced Canada’s influence in international fisheries and facilitated the creation of new partnerships and sustainment of existing ones. 

Recommendation:

IAD should continue its strategies to pursue new partnerships with countries that are emerging as key actors such as China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea.21 IAD should continue to engage in international fora to sustain its bilateral and multilateral partnerships and to increase joint collaboration initiatives with these partners. 

3.2.3   TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC DEMONSTRATING FOREIGN STATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL FISHING AGREEMENTS?

Finding: 

  • Canada’s priorities are to stop overfishing, improve the management of high seas fish stocks, ensure healthy oceans ecosystems, enhance a trading and commercial system that guards and promotes Canadians interests. This aligns with NAFO’s demonstrated support for foreign state compliance with the terms of international fishing agreements. 

Illegal fishing refers to22:

  • Fishing by national or foreign vessels within a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone without permission, or undertaking fishing activities that contravene that country’s laws or regulations;
  • Fishing by a vessel flying the flag of a State party to a relevant RFMO that contravenes conservation or management measures adopted by that organization or part of international law; and
  • Fishing that violates national laws or international obligations.

Unreported fishing refers to:

  • Fishing that has not been reported or has been misreported to the relevant national authority or RFMO.

Unregulated fishing refers to:

  • Fishing within the regulatory zone of a RFMO of a vessel without a nationality, or by a vessel flying the flag of a state not party to the organization (flag of convenience) which contravenes the conservation and management measure set out by the RFMO;
  • Fishing outside of regulated zones, which is inconsistent with efforts under international law to conserve living marine resources.

Evidence: 

Based on the literature review, the FAO estimated that IUU fishing accounted for about 30% of all fishing activity worldwide in 2000.  Independent research from 2005 concluded that the global annual value of IUU fishing activities was upwards of USD $9 billion (not accounting for the unquantifiable costs of IUU fishing, including a reduction in food security, decreased economic stability and loss of biodiversity).  Since approximately 85% of fish caught in Canadian waters are exported, Canadian fish harvesters are susceptible to price fluctuations created by the unpredictable supply of IUU fish products in foreign markets.   IUU fish can depress the price of Canadian fish products, in some cases to unprofitable levels.23

2009 Fish Products Exported to
US    2.3B
EU    416.0M
Japan    264.0M
Hong Kong    90.0M
Iceland    18.4M

The broad scope of IFC enforcement and surveillance activities documented on the DFO website demonstrates Canada’s commitment to foreign state compliance.  This includes joint patrol collaboration with the US and Spain which reinforces bilateral relations and the exchange of best practices.   Canada’s closure of ports to vessels on the IUU fishing lists of the NAFO and ICCAT organizations is a further attestation of Canada’s commitment to foreign state compliance.  Other examples of compliance include Canada’s lead role with traceability systems to enhance controls in overfishing and IUU fishing.  Canada also collaborated with the FAO for the development of Technical Guidelines for the implementation of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU fishing.  Key informants for the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty suggested the need for Canada to increase its’ air and sea surveillance on the Pacific Coast to ensure greater observation and inspection activities.

IUU Fishing Instruments and Strategies

The FOA Committee on Fisheries (COFI) developed and approved an International Plan of Action on IUU fishing (IPOA-IUU fishing) in 2001.  The IPOA-IUU fishing is a voluntary instrument identifying means to deter and eliminate IUU fishing through a series of measures meant to be implemented by all States, RFMOs and regional integration organizations.

Program documentation included Canada’s National Plan of Action on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (NPOA-IUU fishing) developed in 2005.  The plan elaborates and recommends solutions to Canada’s IUU fishing concerns with respect to overcapacity, lack of effective flag State control by both contracting parties and non contracting parties and non-compliance with no consequences by contracting parties to RFMOs.  The European Commission was the first to submit its NPOA-IUU fishing in 2002 with 12 other countries following from 2004 to 2008.24

DFO’s website provided detailed descriptions and accounts of initiatives by Canada demonstrating foreign state compliance with the terms of international agreements. For example, the International MCS Network25 is a strategy created to link fisheries enforcement agencies from around the world and to facilitate increased communications and information sharing between and among nations to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.  Since its inception membership has grown from 6 countries to 50 member nations.

Canada is active in monitoring, control and surveillance efforts undertaken by NAFO and ICCAT in the Atlantic Ocean and by NPAFC in the Pacific Ocean.
Canada invests $30 million annually for aerial surveillance and at sea inspection patrols in the NAFO Regulatory Area, which includes approximately 775,000 square nautical miles of fishable grounds outside the 200 mile limits of coastal States in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.   Canada’s at-sea patrol presence includes two dedicated Coast Guard vessels and 21 offshore enforcement officers. 

Canada’s Compliance Initiatives

In 2003, the High Seas Task Force was formed to develop an action plan to achieve comprehensive solutions to the global IUU fishing problem.   The group was comprised of fisheries Ministers of Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Namibia, as well as Director-Generals of WWF International, the World Conservation Union and the Earth Institute. 

In 2004, NAFO introduced its first compliance review (FC Doc. 04/13) to report on how well the international fisheries complied with the annually updated NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (NCEM). The compliance review also assesses the performance of NAFO Contracting Parties with regard to their reporting obligations.

At the 27th Session of the UN FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in March 2007, members requested an expert consultation to develop criteria for assessing the performance of flag States and to examine potential actions against vessels flying the flags of States not meeting such criteria.  In response to this request, Canada hosted, as an initial step, a workshop on flag State responsibilities in Vancouver in 2008 with assistance, advice and participation of FAO. 

The current 2009 NAFO compliance review compares information for the years 2004 to 2008 from the various reports such as Vessel Monitoring System, Observer, Port Inspection, and at-sea inspection reports and reports on infringements. Critical findings provided in the review include, in part, decreases from 2007 to 2008 in fishing capacity (23%) and fishing effort (59%) and during the 5 year period, a total of 97 apparent infringements resulting from at-sea inspections and 59 from port inspections. The apparent infringement category “Mis-recording of Catches” (both Stowage and Inaccurate recording related) accounted for 30 of the apparent infringements issued at sea (31%) and 29 in port (52%). These infringements were issued more frequently in relation to groundfish fisheries.  

The EU issued a new regulation which established measures to address IUU fishing and applied to any country exporting fish and seafood products to the EU.  The EU is the second largest market for Canada, importing $489 million in fish and seafood products in 2008.  Under the EU regulations, the national government of an exporting country must provide a catch certificate attesting that the fish and seafood products originated from non-IUU fisheries.

Catch Documentation System

In response to this new regulation, Canada has developed a catch documentation scheme (CDS).  Certification and traceability are key to ensuring access to international markets and controlling overfishing and illegal fishing is contingent upon working effectively with our international partners.  In collaboration with provincial governments and industry representatives, DFO has developed a catch documentation scheme (CDS) for issuing the necessary E-catch certificates.  New market demands for information about fish and seafood products are driven by increasing consumer awareness of the origin and safety of food products, as well as regulatory and on regulatory changes to promote legal and sustainable fishing practices.  This traceability process will provide an array of benefits to the fishing industry, including documentation of sustainable management practices, a basis for meeting other regulatory and non regulatory market requirements in the future and easier compliance with labeling laws.26  An MOU with CFIA and CBSA is under consideration for the implementation of the CDS commitments. 

Other critical priorities for Canada include the renewal of policies to support harvesters and allow them greater flexibility in managing their enterprises. Environmental issues increasingly have an impact on markets.  Canada’s efforts in working with other countries paid off and changes to the Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement with the US were successfully ratified to help ensure the long term sustainability of Pacific salmon stocks.

Port State Measures

A critical IUU fishing strategy to enforce foreign state compliance is port State measures.  Essentially, port State measures are requirements established by States with which foreign vessels must comply as a condition of entry and use of the ports within that State.  Measures can include denial of port entry and use of port services, requirements for pre-port entry notification, and designation of ports that permit landings, documentation requirements and in-port inspections.   These new measures are reflected in Chapter V of the 2009 NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures.

The basic principles of the Port State Measures are:

  • designation of ports;
  • prior notification;
  • confirmation from the Flag State;
  • authorization to land or transship, and
  • transparency.

Based on program documentation, Canada has a strong Port Access Policy (2003) based on the concept of closed-port approach whereby the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the discretion to grant a license to foreign fishing vessels to enter Canadian waters and ports, subject to certain limitations set out in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and Regulations; the Minister also has the obligation to close ports to vessels flying the flag of any State that has unsatisfactory fisheries relations with Canada.

Implementing and strengthening port State measures have proven to be cost-effective in preventing, deterring and eliminating activities around the world, and ensuring the long term conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources and marine ecosystems.  For example, several IUU fishing vessels fishing in the area regulated by the NEAFC were decommissioned because they were consistently denied port access by Commission members.

In November 2009, the FAO formally adopted the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. The Agreement recognizes that States are sovereign to make decisions regarding which foreign vessels can enter their ports, but sets a global minimum standard for actions to be taken against vessels that undertake or support IUU fishing activities.

DFO website reports that it is Canada’s view that this treaty will prove to be one of the key tools for tackling the problem of IUU fishing globally.  These measures will enter into force when the instrument is ratified by the 25 States.  RFMOs and port States are using port and trade measures to discourage IUU fishing activity.  These measures include:

  • not allowing vessels suspected of fishing illegally to dock or unload in a country’s port; and
  • developing IUU fishing lists of vessels taking part in illegal fishing activities, and
  • scrapping vessels found guilty of multiple illegal fishing offences.

Canada encourages collaborative efforts to reduce IUU fishing and has agreed not to allow entry to vessels on the IUU fishing lists of NAFO or ICCAT. 

Publication of Vessel Lists

The publication of lists of vessels known to be involved in illegal fishing activities is another important international tool for combating overfishing and many RFMOs have now developed IUU fishing vessel lists as part of their conservation efforts.  Additionally conservation organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF have developed their own lists of vessels suspected of IUU fishing activity. 

In order to eliminate illegal fishing activities, it is essential for Canada and its partners to maintain close working relationships.  The US take illegal fishing operations very seriously and believe in strengthening high seas enforcement by working with DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard.  From June to August 2008, Canada and the US conducted successfully four joint enforcement patrols in NAFO Regulatory Area. This is another testimony to the strong bilateral relationship of Canada and the US and the shared goals of combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  The added value of the joint patrols is that they help reinforce strong Canada-US relations and allow DFO enforcement officials to learn from one another’s best inspection practices.  

With the recent reopening of some cod and redfish fisheries in the NRA, stakeholders interviewed reported that compliance and enforcement activities may face new enforcement challenges as the increased availability of stocks may incite increased overfishing.

Areas of improvement suggested by the key informants included the need for more timely reporting of catch statistics.  The current time lag of one year is ineffective for appropriate enforcement action and to inform the science community. Greater transparency to the Canadian public on events in the NRA and the need to expose IUU fishing offenders, as well as increased engagements of ENGOs, were also reported as priorities.

Conclusion:

The IFC Program supports Canada’s diligence and leadership in demonstrating foreign state compliance with the terms of international fishing agreements.

Recommendation:

IAD should continue its enforcement and surveillance activities in collaboration with its partners.  IAD should also pursue greater cooperation with CFIA and CBSA for the implementation of the Catch Documentation Scheme.

3.2.4 TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS TO SATISFACTORILY PROTECT SHARED FISH STOCK?

International legal instruments and related agreements provide an important framework for the establishment of a lasting and effective management of fisheries and oceans.  International instruments are developed through several means:  bilateral and multilateral relations and meetings, international fora, negotiations, the development of best practices and advocacy workshops to assist with capacity building and to promote compliance and sustainability of fisheries.  

A review of the literature and program documentation attests to Canada’s success in influencing the development of instruments and agreements to support Canada’s interests.  

As part of Canada’ NPOA-IUU fishing, Canada has taken steps to examine all international instruments ratified by Canada and identified in the IPOA to ensure full implementation of their provisions and to assess their effectiveness.

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems

One example of Canada’s influence in the development of international instruments is the strategy for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs).  The deep sea is the least studied of the world’s ecosystems and to this day, remains largely unexplored.  Marine biodiversity found around cold water corals and sponges, seamounts and hydrothermal vents can be threatened by some bottom contact activities. 

Program documentation and DFO website report that Canada has made significant progress identifying and protecting VMEs, as well as promoting this new approach as a priority within the NAFO Regulatory Area through bilateral and multilateral relations with regional management organizations (RFMOs) and at the global level, at international fora.  Canada was instrumental in building consensus for the 2006 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61/105 on Sustainable Fisheries.27  The Resolution called on countries to work individually and cooperatively through regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to develop deep sea fisheries strategies that take into account the precautionary approach and ecosystem based management.

Media events report that the Resolution has been celebrated as the most significant management regime shift in fisheries in many years and a watershed moment in the history of high seas fisheries as it provided a roadmap to identify and protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), while at the same time allowing responsible fisheries to continue. The following conservation actions in support of VMEs by NAFO and Canadian harvesters are indicative of Canada’s effective advocacy and contribution to the development of international instruments for the protection of VMEs.

  • In 2006, NAFO closed four seamounts to commercial fishing. A review of the available science in the seamount areas, as well as further management measures are expected in 2010.
  • In 2007, Canada’s offshore shrimp and groundfish harvesters instituted a voluntary closure in a 12,500 km2 area off the coasts of Baffin Island and Newfoundland and Labrador to protect coldwater corals.
  • In 2007, NAFO agreed to a coral protection zone off Newfoundland’s Grand Bank, and this area is now closed to all bottom contact fishing until 2012.  Scientists will use this time to gather data on corals and other marine habitat in the area to determine long term protection strategies.
  • In 2008, NAFO closed two areas of the Fogo Seamount chain, located approximately 500 km off Newfoundland’s coast to bottom fishing.
  • From January 2009, fishing access to NAFO areas that had not been fished in recent years were subject to an exploratory fishing protocol.

Multiple research projects (31) related to VMEs are now ongoing at Canadian science stations and with international partners.  The UN has declared 2010 as International Year of Biodiversity and Canada will be leading a series of meetings on Biodiversity with international organizations.

NAFO Reforms

Other examples of Canada’s contribution to international agreements include the NAFO reforms outside Canada’s 200 mile limit and Canada’s signoff of the Ministerial Declaration along with 18 other participating countries.  Canada also tabled its National Plan of Action for IUU fishing (NPOA-IUU fishing) to the COFI meeting in Rome in 2005.28

In 2006, Canada participated in the first Review Conference of UNFSA and with 13 other nations, agreed to the ratification of the Convention.  Canada also participated in the NAFO Working Group Meeting (Montreal) to revise the NAFO Convention and provide amendment options that would address in part Canadian issues, the objection and dispute resolution processes, flag state duties, and the precautionary approach and eco-based system.

In 2007, Canada released to the FAO Committee its National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds and the National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.  Canada also contributed to the NAFO Annual Meeting and the adoption of new NAFO Convention measures for protection of corals in the RA and rebuilding cod in the South Banks. 

In 2008, Canada was actively involved in work at the FAO that led to the 2008 adoption of the International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas.  DFO puts great importance on these guidelines as they provide a detailed framework that countries and RFMOs can use to manage deep sea fisheries in the high seas.

In 2009, Canada collaborated with FAO in the development of technical guidelines for the implementation of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU fishing.  This collaboration was effective in ensuring that these measures were consistent with Canada’s longstanding domestic Port State measures.

Developing Countries

Almost 80% of world fishery production takes place in developing countries and their exports represent half of world exports of fish and fishery products by value and about 60% by volume (FAO (2009) State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2008 Rome).
Attempts to improve the management and sustainability of the world’s fisheries would fail if developing countries were not part of the equation (Round Table on Eco-Labeling and Certification in the Fisheries Sector, April 2009, Proceedings, OECD). 

Developing countries are the hardest hit by IUU fishing due to their weak governance measures to manage fisheries.  Given the global need to address overfishing of tuna stocks, developing states need to be fully aware of and compliant with international fisheries standards and the conservation and enforcement rules of RFMOs.  They also need to be encouraged to curb IUU fishing activities of vessels flying their flags and the flags of non-member states by building their MCS capacity within their fisheries management regimes.   Canada has responded to this need by hosting capacity building workshops with the Caribbean. 

Conclusion:

Canada was effective in influencing the development of agreements with developing countries by organizing advocacy workshops. Other examples of contributions include: conservation actions in support of VMEs by NAFO and Canadian harvesters; multiple research projects (31) related to VMEs taking place at Canadian science stations and with international partners;  NAFO reforms outside Canada’s 200 mile limit, which received unanimous acceptance; Canada’s signoff of the Ministerial Declaration; and amendments to the NAFO convention to address in part Canadian issues, the objection and dispute resolution processes, flag state duties, and the precautionary approach and eco-based system.  

Recommendation: 

Canada should continue to play a lead role in the development of international instruments and agreements to satisfactorily protect Canada’s interests.

3.2.5  TO WHAT EXTENT ARE MEMBERSHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS EFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING THE EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES?

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) are the keystone of high seas fisheries governance. They are a vehicle by which States may cooperate in the management of high seas fish stocks.  RFMOs generally have the competence to prescribe conservation and management measures in the areas of the high seas covered by the treaty that established the RFMO.  Member States are responsible for controlling the activities of their fishing vessels and for ensuring that their vessels comply with measures prescribed by the RFMOs.  In areas of the high seas that are not regulated by RFMOs, fishing nations remain accountable for the actions of their vessels and have a duty to comply with international law.

Findings:

Participation in RFMOs is one of the three most critical activities of international fisheries conservation, the other two being science and enforcement.  RFMO membership is critical to Canada’s international role. Expected outcomes of Canada’s membership include the following:

  • Promote combating IUU fishing;
  • Promote adoption of management measures that adhere to scientific advice;
  • Strengthen MCS measures;
  • Promote stronger roles for RFMOs and their Secretariats;
  • Establish new bilateral relationships to generate cooperation with other countries;
  • Maintain/strengthen existing relationships;
  • Protect Canada’s sovereignty and interests;
  • Ensure RFMO members commit to, implement and comply with, management measures; and
  • Ensure harmonization of measures across RFMOs (e.g. tuna).

Membership in RFMOs is critical for Canada to ensure harmonization of measures across the RFMOs (such as the five tuna RFMOs) to avoid duplication and to increase cost efficiency.  As a member of these RFMOs, Canada has a voice and a role to play to ensure compliance with MCS measures and to ensure management measures are based on scientific advice and are consistent with the precautionary approach.

Evidence: 

An example of the value of Canada’s participation in RFMOs is the January 2007 First Joint Tuna RFMOs Meeting in Japan where 60 countries attended along with international Non-Government Organizations and other interested stakeholders, such as Chinese Taipei. The meeting provided an opportunity to exchange information on stock status and markets, and to hear reports from the Secretariats on management efforts.  The main outcome was the launch of a Course of Actions that identified key areas and challenges to be urgently addressed by each tuna RFMO. 

The Ambassador of International Fisheries is actively engaged in generating pressure to ensure RFMO members commit and implement measures. His goals and activities include: bilateral meetings to generate cooperation with other countries and strengthen relationships [International Affairs].  The Ambassador’s role is also key to promoting engagement of RFMO Secretariats to centralize VMS, the RFMO-run observer program and real time reporting.

Canada is a Contracting Party to (member of) of the following RFMOs:

  • ICCAT
  • NAFO
  • NASCO
  • NPAFC
  • WCPFC

Canada is also a Non-Contracting Cooperating Party to the following RFMOs:

  • CCAMLR
  • NEAFC
  • IATTC (former party 1968-1984)(will become a contracting Party with the entry into force of the Antigua Convention on August 27, 2010).

Strong governance of the high seas through regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) is integral to reducing illegal fishing activities.29  However, management of the high seas by RFMO’s is inconsistent and most high seas areas are not covered by RFMOs who have authority to manage deep sea bottom fisheries. Bottom trawl fishing in these regions is by definition unregulated high seas fishing. Although RFMO member countries can apply some sanctions on uncooperative non member countries such as trade restrictions and import bans, the lack of control over non member state fleets is an enormous loophole in the RFMO scheme.

The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) which is at the heart of modern high seas governance, enshrines the precautionary and ecosystem approaches and gives a predominant role to RFMOs. UNFSA is a framework agreement that provides a basis for renewal and reform of RFMOs and arrangements. 

The following is an excerpt from Katherine McGlade, from her article:  RFMO: An examination of the ICCAT as an International Fisheries Policy (May 2009):

RFMO were initially created as international fisheries management instruments by governments involved in migratory fish harvest, to manage stocks that move between two or more nations Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and manage these fish by region.  A key obligation of the RFMO is the conservation and optimum utilization of these stocks between and beyond the EEZs of the affected coastal States (UN, 1982). 

RFMOs are inter-governmental organizations with the statutory authority to manage the fishing of stocks and are guided by international agreements such as

  • the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (1982) (UNCLOS),
  • the 1995 UN Fish Stock Agreement (UNFSA)  and
  • the 1995 UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO Code).

Under UNFSA, any nation state that fishes straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stock on the high seas is encouraged to join the RFMO that manages the stock.  

RFMOs make two kinds of fishery management decisions:  biological conservation decisions including Total Allowable Catch, fish size limitations and adoption of measures relation to fishing, and allocation decisions including allocation of TAC to the membership, limitations on fleet size and access limitation.

RFMOs face many challenges.  Most of the tuna stocks are fully exploited or over exploited leaving no room for RFMOs to increase catch quotas without endangering stock declines (WWF for Nature, 2007).   The difficulties associated with reaching agreements under a management regime that is set up to protect state sovereignty cannot be underestimated.  Coupled with the impossibility of complete knowledge in fisheries science, maximum harvest for immediate profit tends to overshadow the precautionary principle of long term conservation.

The politics of RFMO management are intensively complicated due to the differing needs of the member States including developing and developed nations, but also as a result of the political agendas of the various nations which may encompass other issues beyond fishing.  There may for example be behind the scenes trading between nations before the vote of a new regulation or quota. The treaty establishing the RFMO may also allows nation to object or abstain from management measures, exacerbating the problem.

RFMOs do work when nations are able to agree that a stock is in trouble and that stronger management is needed.

From our review of program documentation, we observed that in March 2007, the FAO Committee on Fisheries agreed to develop criteria for assessing the performance of flag States and examine possible actions against vessels flying the flags of States not meeting such criteria.  As an initial step, Canada proposed and hosted by invitation only an expert workshop on flag State responsibility in Vancouver in March 2008.  The following are a few of the key recommendations presented at the Workshop on the legal framework and international obligations for flag states, which further attests to the value of international commissions of flag States, which further attest to the value of RFMOs:

  • Survey countries for information on how flag State responsibilities are implemented;
  • Identify and explore the practical and legal risks and benefits of various possible actions that may be taken related to:
    • individual infractions by individual vessels, which may give rise to the right of non-flag states to take immediate action;
    • a consistent pattern of failure on the part of the flag State to comply with any or all  of its various responsibilities which may result in longer term consequences
  • Identify what actions can be taken by non-flag states, by RFMOs or by other intergovernmental organizations, and whether they differ depending on the organization;
  • Determine the capacity of developing countries to implement flag state responsibilities;
  • Identify areas for capacity building;
  • Identify ways and means of assisting developing countries to ensure better flag State control. 

The following is a snapshot of RFMOs to which Canada is a member, the relevance of Canada’s membership and the outcomes realized to support Canada’s objectives.

WCPFC

WCPFC is a 32 member international organisation responsible for the management of tuna and tuna-like species in the Central and Western Pacific ocean, which comprises 55% of the world’s tuna fisheries with a landed value of $3 billion. Canada’s main interest in this commission is the sustainable management of North Pacific albacore tuna in the Convention Areas of the WCPFC and the IATTC and the Canadian and US EEZs.  The Canadian albacore tuna fishery valued at $25 to $30 million occurs within Canadian fisheries waters, the US EEZ and the WCPFC and adjacent IATTC Convention Areas.

[International Affairs]

IATTC

North Pacific albacore tuna is a stock that falls under the purview of the IATTC, in which both Canada and the US have a major interest, since both countries prosecute this fishery in their respective EEZs in accordance with the Canada-US Pacific Albacore Treaty.

In 2009, Canadian vessels harvested 5,685 tonnes. [International Affairs] IATTC signed an MOU in December with WCPFC. IATTC management measures for the stock developed by IATTC could impact the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty. Canada will become a full member of the Commission in August 2010, when the Antigua Convention comes into force. As a new Member of IATTC, Canada can take the opportunity to suggest constructive changes to the functioning of the Organization and as a member of both Organizations; Canada will seek to ensure ongoing consistency between the two. 

NAFO 

Canada has and continues to play a lead role in NAFO. NAFO is a Regional Fisheries Management Organizations founded in 1979 under the NAFO Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. NAFO replaced the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). NAFO's overall objective is to contribute to the optimum utilization, rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the NAFO Convention Area and to help its members work together to effectively manage and conserve the high seas fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.

NAFO management covers most fishery resources in the Northwest Atlantic except salmon, tunas/marlins, whales, seals and sedentary species (e.g. snow crab, lobster and various clams). NAFO covers the following straddling stocks: cod in NAFO division(s) 3NO, redfish in 3LN and 3O, American plaice in 3LNO, yellowtail flounder in 3LNO, which flounder in 3L and 3NO, white hake in 3NO, capelin in 3NO, skates in 3NO, Greenland halibut in 3LMNO, squid in sub-areas 3 & 4, and shrimp in 3L. In addition, NAFO manages discrete stocks on the Flemish Cap, cod in the 3M zone, redfish, American plaice and shrimp of the oceanic redfish stock that is found in the Convention Areas waters of both RFMOs.

NAFO also shares management with the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC).  NAFO has achieved important milestones to become a strong modern and effective RFMO, principally:

  • advanced precautionary and ecosystem approaches among its members;
  • strengthened its monitoring, control and surveillance systems; and
  • enhanced the transparency of the organization.  

Measures implemented by NAFO (2009) supporting Canada’s interests include in part the following:

  1. VMEs. Since 2006, several closures of fishing areas were enforced by NAFO in response to the impact on vulnerable marine ecosystems arising from bottom fishing.

  2. M cod and 3LN red Fisheries and Oceans Canada:  A directed fishery was re-opened for 3M code and 3LN red fish in the NAFO RA with an established TAC of 5,500 tonnes and 3,500 tonnes respectively with additional measures as follows:

    • inclusion of by catch by Contracting Parties toward the calculation of their respective catch totals; and
    • reduction to 5% by catch levels for Contracting Parties without a specific quota allocation which are fishing under as “others” quota.

  3. Use of VMS data for search and rescue and marine safety purposes,  increased frequency of VMS data reporting from two hours to one and addition of requirement that VMS data communicated include  speed and course/heading; new reporting requirements to simplify reporting and

  4. Requirement for NAFO Performance review

NAFO meetings held in 2009 included

  • 31st NAFO Annual Meeting;
  • Working Group of Fishery Managers and Scientists on VMEs (March);
  • Ad hoc Working Group for Fisheries Managers and Scientists (September);
  • Standing Committee on International Control (May);
  • Scientific Council Ad Hoc Working on Assessment Methods for SA 2 + 3KLMNO Greenland Halibut (June);
  • Scientific Council Regular Meeting in Canada (June).

The 31st NAFO Annual Meeting in 2009 was attended by 175 delegates from 12 Contracting Parties – Canada, Cuba Denmark (in respect of Faroe Islands and Greenland), European Union, France (in respect of St. Pierre et Miquelon), Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and United States of America. 

The three bodies of NAFO, of which the Scientific Council was chaired by Canada (Don Power), met for one week prior to the meeting. The meeting was also attended by observers from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Pew Environment Group.

NAFO plays a large role in controlling Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing.  Illegal fishing is most prevalent where governance measures to manage fisheries are the weakest, which explains why developing countries are the hardest hit by IUU fishing.  (An estimated $1 billion in IUU fishing is happening in the coastal waters of sub- Saharan Africa each year).  
 
Strong governance of the high seas through regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) is integral to reducing illegal fishing activities. Bottom trawl fishing in these regions is by definition unregulated high seas fishing.30  However, management of the high seas by RFMO’s is inconsistent and most high seas areas are not covered by RFMOs who have authority to manage deep sea bottom fisheries.  There is also the ruling that under international law, a country is not bound by the decisions of an RFMO to which it does not belong. 

Although RFMO member countries can apply some sanctions on uncooperative non member countries such as trade restrictions and import bans, the lack of control over non member state fleets is an enormous loophole in the RFMO scheme.

The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) which is at the heart of modern high seas governance, enshrines the precautionary and ecosystem approaches and gives a predominant role to RFMOs.  UNFSA is the agreement that must be used as a basis for renewal and reform of RFMOs and arrangements on a worldwide basis. 

In 2008, 5 additional states became parties of UNFSA (the Republic of Korea, Palau, Oman, Hungary and Slovakia) increasing the total number of parties since 2006 to 16 and the total to date to 72.

Membership in international commissions is critical for Canada to ensure harmonization of measures across the RFMOs (such as the 5 tuna RFMOs) to avoid duplication and to increase cost efficiency.  As a member of these commissions, Canada has a voice and a role to play to ensure compliance with MCS measures and to ensure management measures are based on scientific advice and are consistent with the precautionary approach.

Key areas of concern for Canada are:

  • Ensuring management measures are based on scientific advice and consistent with the precautionary approach
  • Implement controls capacity reduction to ensure actual total catch, fishing effort level and capacity are in line with available fishing opportunities to ensure sustainability of resources.

NASCO

Based on program documentation, NASCO promotes international cooperation on conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of Atlantic salmon stocks. There is no commercial salmon fishery in the NASCO regulatory area.  Parties include Canada, Russia, US, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and the EU.  The Parties meet annually to consider scientific advice, coordinate research and set quotas for the West Greenland fisheries. Against the background of continuing declines of wild Atlantic salmon stocks across the North Atlantic, delegates met for the 26th Annual Meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) in Norway, which has the largest remaining stocks of this iconic species. At the 2008 Annual Meeting, it was agreed that NASCO would conduct a performance review in 2010.
 
[International Affairs] Despite large reductions in exploitation and the implementation of many conservation measures in all countries around the North Atlantic, the decline of wild salmon has continued and is now mainly attributed to lower marine survival during their extensive migration phase.

Canada undertakes every five years a survey to collect information on recreational fishing activities in all jurisdictions.  In 2010, Canada will undertake a socio-economic survey for the recreational fishery. Canada will also be hosting the next NASCO meeting in 2010 in the province of Quebec. 

CCAMLR

The objective of CCAMLR is to ensure the conservation, including rational use, of Antarctic living marine resources. This includes the following species; Antarctic Krill, Patagonian toothfish, Antarctic toothfish, sub-Antarctic lantern fish, mackerel icefish, sevenstar flying squid, Antarctic rock cod and crabs. Seabirds are significant bycatch issue and  mitigation measures have been in place since 1992. Other bycatch species include Antarctic rock cods, ice fishes, skates and rays.  All fisheries are subject to precautionary TACs.

The CCAMLR Convention is the first international fisheries instrument to outline the precautionary approach conservation principle and in 2005, the only RFMO to have fully incorporated the precautionary approach into the stock assessment and decision making processes for all regulated fisheries under CCAMLR jurisdiction. 

The vast size and inhospitable conditions of the Southern Ocean make it extremely difficult for Member States to enforce or police CCAMLR measures to combat IUU fishing.  Each member of the Commission is involved in fishing and/or scientific research in the Southern Ocean, coordinated and regulated by the Commission and Scientific Communities to fulfill Members’ obligations under the Convention.

The CCAMLR membership totals 24 nations.  Canada is a Cooperating Party of CCAMLR, and as such, does not participate in the decision making of the commission, does not pay dues but is bound by the Convention.

CCAMLR outcomes:

During the IPY 2007-2008, CCAMLR Member countries participated in large-scale research in Antarctic waters, which included acoustic studies and surveys of krill, pelagic fish and plankton, surveys of demersal fish, squid and large macro-invertebrates and sampling for the Census of Antarctic Marine Life.
 
In 2009, another important study was undertaken by CCAMLR (PEW Environment Group) on Port Visits of Vessels on CCAMLR’s IUU fishing Vessel Lists to assist in the development of a CCAMLR Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing.  The scope of the study included the IUU fishing vessel lists of eight member organizations for the period January 2004 to March 2009 for a total list of 176 IUU fishing listed vessels. 

Critical observations were provided for the effectiveness of port measures; study findings concluded that port measures must be harmonized at the global level to allow for the use of the vessel list of one RFMO as evidence of IUU fishing activities by any port State.   The study also recommended that CCAMLR must agree to take action against vessels listed on IUU fishing vessel listed adopted by other international organizations and thirdly, to ensure the integrity of data, the use of databases such as Lloyd’s Register-Fairplan and Lloyd’s MIU should become practice as these are frequently updated.31

Conclusion:

The evaluation has reported on clear outcomes to support the value of membership in
RFMOs and the need for Canada to play a lead role in reform initiatives for existing
RFMOs and new capacity building strategies to support the developing country
members. 

Canada’s expertise will be critical in the negotiations to formulate a framework and processes for the creation of new RFMOs in areas of the high seas previously unregulated, such as the North Pacific RFMO. The engagement of the Ambassador and the coordination of the Canadian delegation has strengthened Canada’s position as an international leader in the management of RFMOs.

Recommendation:

IAD should continue to engage in negotiations for the creation of new RFMOs with a
view to championing the best practices of RFMOs spearheaded by Canada and the
development of new strategies to effectively address membership issues for developing
countries.  IAD should pursue their strategy to promote stronger roles for RFMOs and
their Secretariats,  with particular focus on harmonization of approaches across RFMOs
(i.e. tuna).

3.3 Program Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness


3.3.1  TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC MANAGED IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER?

Efficiency is defined in the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation in the following manner:

“the extent to which resources are used such that a greater level of output is produced with the same level of input or, a lower level of input is used to produce the same level of output. The level of input and output could be increases or decreases in quantity, quality, or both”.

Finding:

One of the key functions of the IAD is to integrate the collaboration between DFO sectors, NGO partners and beneficiaries.  The IAD was recently reorganized to integrate sector activities for international engagements and to increase coherence and coordination across the Department and with OGDs and stakeholders.  The re-alignment has streamlined management of the program reducing positions and incorporating prioritization of international engagements as part of the business planning process. 

Evidence:

Key informants for the Canada-US Albacore Tuna Treaty have assessed this integration as somewhat good to very good.  Comments included the need for more collaboration and greater operational expertise as its relates to the Treaty itself and greater advocacy of the Ambassador’s role as it was felt that this was not well understood.  The informants reported that the Treaty’s activities have occurred as planned due to the proper and diligent planning process, such as negotiations and the annual bilateral meetings and strong collaboration between the Pacific region and the IAD in decision making.  Efficiency measures included restricting meeting attendance to matters of Treaty implementation issues and for the exchange of data.  One informant suggested it may be time to increase the budget in order to add a Customs representative at the bilateral meetings.   [Solicitor-Client Privilege]

[International Affairs]

A current Performance Measurement Framework and Strategy is in development to support the assessment of efficiency and economy of the activities and outputs of the IFC Program.  The systematic data collection in support of the program’s Performance Management Framework / Strategy will likely lead to new/enhanced reporting requirements for Communications as one of the related programs receiving directed funding. Communications reported that their budget planning process allows for clear reporting of expenditures derived from this directed funding and  they will work with IAD to ensure that they can input to IAD’s reporting processes in an effective manner.

The PMF/PM Strategy will be a critical tool to ensure that the resource commitment for IFC activities is adequate to effectively support the current and future international obligations of Canada and to ensure Canada delivers on its commitments.  

3.3.2  TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE IFC MANAGED IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER?

The Treasury Board Secretariat defines economy in the following manner in its Policy on Evaluation:

minimizing the use of resources.  Economy is achieved when the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to achieve expected outcomes.

Finding: 

In measuring cost effectiveness and economies of scale, one must keep in mind that for international fisheries, international relations, collaboration and treaty related activities and outputs are difficult to quantify as they involve ongoing interaction with many levels of government officials throughout the year and may not achieve result in the immediate or intermediate term.  The level of activity is also driven by the amount of fishing activity.  Every season varies in terms of the number of a specific species caught and the number of vessels permitted to harvest.

It would therefore not be appropriate to infer that a specific investment made by Canada either for international relations or enforcement can be attributed to an outcome that was derived from the collaboration of several international partners. 

Benchmarking may be the closest measure one could apply to determine if the delivery of the IFC Program is cost effective. The element of risks is also paramount to the successful delivery of a program such as the IFC.

Evidence:

Benchmarking is often used to assess whether the program has achieved certain expected outcomes with the minimum amount of resources.  Key informants indicated that certain aspects of this program could be benchmarked with other similar programs in the Government of Canada.  In the context of the IFC program, exports of Canadian fish products, through the IFC trade function, would be considered an expected outcome.    AAFC performs similar trade functions and in 2008, agriculture-related products had a value of $34B in exports and AAFC employed 105 professional staff in trade policy areas.  In the same year, fish and seafood accounted for $4B in exports, and the trade-related portion of this program at DFO employed 8 FTES.  This suggests that in achieving the trade outcome, relative to AAFC, resource use has been minimized (2 FTES for IFC versus 2.7 FTES for AAFC for $1B of exports).

Key informants indicated that the recent amalgamation of the Directorate while being efficient is also a cost saving measure as it resulted in the reduction of personnel costs.  Key informant interviews indicated that changes in the type and number of personnel traveling to meetings will also potentially lead to further cost savings.  It should be noted however that this potential was not fully explored at the time of the evaluation.

Document and file review demonstrated that cost effectiveness is a key factor considered in the operation of RFMOs.   Some overlap and duplication in operational activities, including science and enforcement, may exist between existing RFMOs and proposed new RFMOs (e.g., NPAFC and proposed North Pacific RFMO). [International Affairs]     IAD is also exploring potential opportunities for savings in directed funding provided to other related programs.

As mentioned in the Efficiency section, a current Performance Measurement Framework and Strategy is in development to support the assessment of efficiency and economy of the activities and outputs of the IFC Program.  A Corporate Risk Profile will also be developed to ensure the IFC is managed on a risk basis.

Conclusions:

Benchmarking to AAFC indicates that the IFC trade promotion activity is comparable in economies of scale with that of similar programs.

Document review and key informant interviews indicate that minimizing cost in  achieving expected outcomes has been a major consideration in managing the IFC
Program.  Based on the evaluation findings, IAD has implemented cost rationalization measures to ensure the IFC Program is managed in the most cost effective manner.   IAD is also exploring further cost saving approaches.

Recommendations:

The new PMF/PM Strategy should be developed and finalized as a priority to ensure the strategy can be operationalized in the near future with an efficient reporting system.   A Corporate Risk Profile should also be developed to ensure mitigation strategies are in place and the program is managed in a risk-based manner.

IAD should continue to explore opportunities for further efficiencies such as rationalized participation in Commissions and more effective cost sharing arrangements among Parties of the Commissions.

Annex A – IFC files, program documentation, URLs

Annex B - IFC Evaluation Interview Guide

International Fisheries Conservation (IFC)
RELEVANCE

Issue #1:  Alignment with Government and departmental priorities

To what extent is the IFC aligned with federal government and DFO priorities?

Issue #2:  Alignment with Government and departmental roles and responsibilities

To what extent is the IFC aligned with the role and responsibilities for the federal government and DFO?

Issue #3:  Continued Need for Program

To what extent does the IFC continues to address a demonstrable need?

EFFECTIVENESS

Issue #4: Achievement of Expected Outcomes

To what extent is the IFC achieving its expected outcomes (immediate, intermediate) including the linkage and contribution of outputs to outcomes?

EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

Issue #5:  Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

To what extent is the IFC managed in an efficient and cost effective manner?

Annex C - IFC Logic Model

 LOGIC MODEL – INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES CONSERVATION
Stakeholders Inputs Activities (DFAIT where indicated) Outputs Outcomes 0-7 yrs Outcomes +7 yrs

DFO Sectors

  • IFR
  • C&P
  • FAM
  • Policy
  • RM
  • Science

Ambassador for Intl Fisheries

OGDs (DFAIT,  DND, Justice, EC, INAC)

Provinces/Territories

Fishing nations

RFMOs

Bilateral/
Multilateral partners

ENGOs

UN organizations

Canadian fishing industries

Seal markets

Aboriginal groups

 

DFO Funding

DFAIT (IFOGS) Funding

Resources

Expertise

 

Identify domestic issues/
strengthen governance of RFMO (C&P);
Promote/
enhance fisheries opportunities/
negotiate quotas for fisheries industries

Consult w Provinces/
Territories; participate with Aboriginal groups and fishing industries as part of delegation;
GoC supports Ambassador

Build/cultivate relationships w fishing nations, with enforcement agencies (C&P);
Participate  in working groups with P/T, Aboriginal groups and NGOs (C&P);
Coordinate support  to IC and EC  for CITES meetings

Represent Canada at intl fora (C&P)
Coordinate development of Cdn positions/
trade missions (DFAIT); support bilateral missions w DFAIT/Canadian embassies (DFO); educate embassies (DFO);  Ambassador advocates for Canada’s interest (albacore tuna)

Provide advice on international legal instruments (C&P)

Provide advice on treaties and enforcement agreements (C&P);  negotiate treaties/
agreements/
arrangements;
Identify/
recommend changes to existing DFO legislation (e.g., Coastal Fisheries Protection Act) where appropriate

Sovereignty – resolve boundary disputes;
Develop/
implement IUU FISHING deterrence strategies (C&P) w RFMOs;
Follow-up on non compliance

Develop market access plan and seal strategy (C&P Atlantic) for domestic enforcement)

Advance precautionary approach and ecosystems within international fora

Conduct advocacy activities on capacity building to ensure sustainability of fisheries (Caribbean); share expertise w enforcement agencies (C&P)

Best practices for RFMO members; domestic obligations consistent w international obligations agreed through RFMO’s on all major issues.  New fishing opportunities for Cdn industries (quota transfer, chartering opportunities)

Whole of government approach

Fishing nations, Aboriginal groups, NGOs and fisheries industries are engaged

Consensus building through bilateral and multilateral relations

International legal instruments support Canada’s interests and High seas management measures align with govt policy

Conventions are modernized and management measures are implemented

Settle boundary disputes
Implemented IUU FISHING deterrence Strategy
Implemented national and international compliance framework

Market access plan (seal); tools developed to evaluate cost impact of past and future decisions; long term seal strategy

Increased decisions by RFMO to follow science advice;  positive change in status of fish stocks

Implementation of advocacy initiatives;  new international partnerships and alliances

Sustainable management measures are adopted and implemented by RFMOs;
Economic viability of fishing industries is protected from international factors (e.g., IUU fishing)

Unanticipated challenges to meeting Canada’s agenda are successfully addressed 

Canada  protects and/or increases its share of internationally managed fish stocks

Canada’s reputation as a responsible flag state is maintained
Relationships w partners are enhanced (i.e. Greenland, US, Europe)

Canadian initiatives are agreed to at NAFO;
international agreements protect fisheries;
high seas governance is improved;

Canada plays a leadership role;  increased awareness of need for level of sustainable TACs

Control of IUU FISHING  iseffective and by catch is reduced

Market Access Action Plan is implemented;
new markets for seal  products are created

Ecosystems and precautionary approach are implemented

Canada’s international fisheries governance objectives are advanced; fishing capacity is commensurate with fishing opportunities

Sustainable international fisheries

Modified March 9, 2010 Version 13

ANNEX D – MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

Project Title: Evaluation of International Fisheries Conservation
Project No.: 6B121
Sector: International Affairs

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

  RECOMMENDATIONS   MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN STATUS REPORT UPDATE
ACTIONS COMPLETED ACTIONS OUTSTANDING TARGET DATE

1. Continue exploring new partnerships with countries that are emerging as key actors such as China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea.

 

 

- IAD agrees with this recommendation.

- IAD has developed an evergreen strategy for targeted bilateral engagement, based on relevant international objectives. IAD will also continue to explore establishing more formal cooperation, including through developing new MOUs, as appropriate, with some of these emerging countries (e.g., China). This will be based on an ongoing intra-departmental planning process and in consultation with OGDs.

- This will be evaluated through reporting against the proposed PMF and associated PMS (see #6 below).

 

 

N/A

2. Pursue greater cooperation with CFIA and CBSA for the implementation of the Catch Documentation Scheme.

- IAD agrees with this recommendation.

- This is an ongoing initiative and requires support from CFIA and CBSA given their roles in carrying out inspections (no timeline is possible as this is a shared responsibility).

- This will be evaluated through reporting against the proposed PMF and associated PMS.

 

 

N/A

3. Continue to engage in international fora to sustain its bilateral and multilateral partnerships and to increase joint collaboration initiatives with international partners and OGDs, such as the potential MOU with CFIA and CBSA.

 

- IAD agrees with this recommendation.

- IAD will continue discussions through the International Travel Integration Committee (DMC-level intra-departmental process), which commenced in March 2010 and are ongoing, to ensure DFO’s international engagement is based on departmental priorities aligned to broader GoC priorities.

- This will be evaluated through reporting against the proposed PMF and associated PMS.

 

 

N/A

4. Continue to engage in negotiations for the creation for new RFMOs with a view to championing the best practices of RFMOs and developing new strategies to address capacity and compliance issues for the developing countries.

- IAD agrees with this recommendation.

- IAD will continue its support for developing new RFMOs where appropriate, such as the North Pacific RFMO, but will also look to rationalize RFMOs where mandates overlap (e.g., North Pacific). There are evergreen strategies in place outlining Canada’s objectives regarding each RFMO in which we are a Party. IAD has also developed an evergreen tuna advocacy strategy that is targeted toward developing countries.

- These initiatives will be evaluated through reporting against the proposed PMF and associated PMS (see #6 below).

 

 

N/A

5. Promote Canada’s position on strengthening roles for RFMOs and their Secretariats with particular focus on harmonization of MCS measures across RFMOs.

 

- IAD agrees with this recommendation.

- IAD will continue, as an ongoing priority and consistent with our overall strategy (as in #2 above), to advocate for the modernization of RFMOs (e.g., strengthening compliance, implementing ecosystem-based approaches) through direct participation in relevant meetings and negotiations.

- This will be evaluated through reporting against the proposed PMF and associated PMS.

 

 

N/A

6. Develop and finalize the new PMF/PM Strategy as a priority to ensure the strategy can be operationalized in the near future with an efficient evaluation and reporting system; develop a Corporate Risk Profile to ensure mitigation strategies are in place to manage the program in a risk-based manner; and IAD should continue to explore opportunities for further efficiencies such as rationalized participation in Commissions and more effective cost sharing arrangements among Parties of the Commissions.

- IAD agrees with this recommendation.

- IAD has developed a PMF for the “International Affairs” program activity for the proposed 2011-12 DFO PAA. Both a PMS and Corporate Risk Profile will be developed over the summer and completed/implemented in the fall, and will build on previous related efforts.

- Reporting against the new PMF will be required through the DPR process.

- Finalized PMF for International Affairs program activity (proposed pending final approval by DFO senior management)

- Drafting and finalizing PMS and CRP

November 2010


1. S. M. Kaye, International Fisheries Management, (2001) The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

2. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU-eng.htm

3. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2008/hq-ac47-eng.htm

4. www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-IUU/2/en

5. www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-IUU/npoa/eng

6. See M.E.A. Lodge and Anderson, 2007.

7. See McGlade, 2009.

8. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU fishing-eng.htm

9. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/statement-declarations/2008/20080529-eng.htm

10. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/statement-declarations/2008/20080529-eng.htm

11. Summary of reporting on International Governance in DFO RPP and DPR

12. Statistics from the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, “The Sea Around Us, 2010. A global database on marine fisheries and ecosystems,” site www.seaaroundus.org. (retrieved Apr. 29, 2010).

13. See Gordon Munro, “International Allocation Issues and the High Seas: An Economist’s Perspective,” Working Paper 2006-12, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, 2006), p. 4. 

14. Report of The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992) Annex I Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development.  Retrieved on April 30, 2010 from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

15. S. M. Kaye, International Fisheries Management, (2001) The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

16. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU fishing-09a-eng.htm

17. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2009/nl-tn131-eng.htm

18. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca?overfishing-superche/mcs-IUU fishing-vesl-eng.htm

19. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2008/hq-ac47-eng.htm

20. www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-IUU/2/en

21. IAD Business Plan 2010-11

22. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU-eng.htm

23. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU fishing-09a-eng.htm

24. www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-IUU/npoa/eng

25. www.imcsnet.org/imcs/about_mcs_network.shtml

26. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2009/hq-ac47-eng.htm

27. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/media/bk_20090720-03-eng.htm

28. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-IUU fishing-eng.htm

29. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU fishing-eng.htm

30. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/overfishing-surpeche/isu-IUU fishing-eng.htm

31. www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/sc/ipy/a-info.htm

32. See the IFC logic model (Appendix C) outcome relating to increasing economic opportunity.  Exports would be considered an outcome in an “open systems” model as outputs are a key form of interaction with an organization and its environment—in this case other countries.  (See J.C. McDavid and L.R.L. Hawthorn, Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice, (2006), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, p. 42.