A new Dockside Observer Checks System (DOCS) has been developed in the NCR to assist fishery officers in conducting audits of the dockside observers and to record and report the information gathered during these dockside audits.

The Scotia Fundy Region is in the process of developing a reporting capability for their MARFIS / VDC system. This system gathers information electronically from the dockside monitoring companies. The initial work, which looked at catch composition, is complete and looks quite promising. That is where we can compare observed catches versus unobserved catches in the same area and get an idea about high grading etc. The region prepared a proposal that was going to advance the data integration but due to budget constraints, the work has not advanced.

Pacific region completed a study to partially automate applications and designations for observers.

Newfoundland has started a process where their observers are entering data from touchtone phones. The data is then generated in an electronic format instead of hard copy. In addition, the main Nfld. DMC has its training manual on CD. The company is in the process of having this information available on its website. This will allow for easier access by its employees in isolated locations for training purposes.

Modifications are under way in the Gulf to upgrade their GFISP System, which is an automated system where the DMCs enter all log book info for all observed catches. This system can report on all data and fishery officers have full access to this data.

Each region has established a working group with representation from all DFO organizations that are stakeholders in the program.

• Newfoundland established a DMP DFO working group in 1998.
• Pacific is in the process of setting up.
• Quebec has working group in place which meets at least 3 times per year.
• Gulf has DFO DMP Steering Committee which meets twice a year.
• Maritimes DMP working groups meet or conduct conference calls on a frequent basis. This applies both to internal issues as well as communication with DMCs and industry.

3) The Directors of Fisheries Management in all DMP regions should ensure that a DMP Industry Consultation Committee is established to provide a regular opportunity for all DMP industry stakeholders to be consulted on program changes, issues and concerns.

Each region agrees that such consultations are important, and will ensure that all industry stakeholders are consulted on DMP program changes, issues and concerns, either through the establishment of DFO/industry consultation committees or through currently established industry advisory committees/boards. The Newfoundland Region currently has a committee and the Gulf Region has indicated that they will establish one.

January 31, 2003

All regions are consulting regularly with industry.

• Nfld – formal meetings take place annually, during the development of IFMP’s. New or amended DMP requirements are communicated to DMC’s and other stakeholders in that forum. Pacific – Industry consultations are undertaken in conjunction with the integrated fish management plan process, and they are considering industry membership on the regional working group.
• Gulf – When Resource Management has their Industry Consultation meetings, the Gulf DMP Co-ordinator and all DMCs attend these meetings and address all DMP issues.
• Quebec has an industry consultative committee which meets regularly. The regional DMC Coordinator will attend these meetings in the future as required to address DMP issues.
• Maritimes addresses DMP issues through the industry consultation process in conjunction with the integrated fish management plan process.

4) The Directors of Fisheries Management in the Newfoundland, Maritimes, Quebec and Pacific Regions should assign the responsibility for DMP to a full-time co-ordinator from the Conservation and Protection organization in their respective regions.

The overall responsibility for the program has been assigned to Conservation and Protection Directorate at National and Regional Headquarters. Regions and National Headquarters will take whatever measures required to ensure that this program is effectively managed and monitored to ensure its integrity.

Immediate

DMP Coordinators are as follows:

NL – Jackie Kean
SF – Ken Rodman
Gf – Monica Cormier
Que – Marcel Picard
Pac – Wanda Saunby
NHQ – Dave Kay

5) The Director of Fisheries Management in the Pacific Region should transfer the coordination responsibility for the At-Sea Observer Program to the Conservation and Protection organization in order to maximize integration opportunities with the DMP.

These responsibilities will be transferred to the Director, Conservation and Protection.

April, 2003

The At-Sea Observer Coordinator in the Pacific is now in the Conservation and Protection Directorate as of June 2004 (i.e., the Groundfish Enforcement Coordinator, Sue Bunten).

6) The ADM, Fisheries Management, should assign the responsibility for the national coordination of the DMP to the Conservation and Protection Branch of head -quarters and ensure adequate resources are dedicated to this function in order that it is effectively carried out.

The overall responsibility for the program has been assigned to Conservation and Protection Directorate at National and Regional Headquarters. National Headquarters will take whatever measures required to ensure that this program is effectively managed and monitored to ensure its integrity.

Immediate

The responsibility for the national coordination of the DMP was transferred to the Conservation and Protection Branch of head-quarters in 2003.
Annual budget has been increased to $90,000 to facilitate the DMC designation process for the Pacific region.

7) The Director General of the Newfoundland Region should ensure that the Dockside Monitoring Companies currently operating without being designated, fully comply with Section 39.1 of the Fishery (General) Regulations.

There is currently one Dockside Monitoring Company in the Newfoundland Region requiring designation. This company has recently restructured its board of directors. A decision on designation is anticipated before the end of this year.

Dec. 31, 2002

All DMCs in the Newfoundland region were designated prior to the 2004 fishing season.

8) The Director General of the Pacific Region should ensure that the DMP in the Pacific Region incorporates the designation process described in Section 39.1 of the Fishery (General) Regulations.

Recommendation will be implemented. More time is needed to resolve legal issues and to give at least one year notice to service providers.

April 1, 2003

All DMCs in the Pacific have completed all requirements for designation. Due to budget restrictions and operational requirements of the DMCs, the required audits by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) for this designation process were delayed until July of 2004. These audits have now been successfully completed by the CGSB and it is expected that all Pacific DMCs will be listed by the CGSB and designated pursuant to Section 39.1 of the F(G)R in the very near future. The remaining obstacles now are:

1) the observer certification process in the Pacific region is slow due to security clearances taking months to return;
2) Resource Management does not have operational requirements formally set out; and
3) training plans are not approved, etc.

9) The ADM of Fisheries Management should clarify the requirements for the designation of new Dockside Monitoring Companies as they pertain to financial viability as well as the requirements for a Dockside Monitoring Company requesting re-designation.

Since the introduction of the "Atlantic Policies and Procedures" it has been noted that there are areas that need clarification. This issue will be addressed as part of the review of this document.

April 1, 2003

The new draft National DMP Policy and Procedures document has addressed this issue. This draft document is in the final stages is expected to be adopted by early 2005 (see 16c below).

The draft policy requires an attestation from a certified accountant or financial institution indicating that the company has good financial standing, sufficient working capital to implement a business plan, or the posting of a bond equal to three months of projected revenues.

10) The ADM of Fisheries Management should:

a) Develop a national policy, which stipulates the minimum requirements necessary for someone to deliver training to Dockside Observers.

a) The National Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP) Working Group will give further consideration to this. A national policy would have to take into account the unique training requirements of the regions. Minimum trainer capabilities could be established on a national scale, with regional emphasis on knowledge of local fisheries. National standards would have to be of a high level and generic in nature.

Implementation of all the action items under recommendation #10 will be April 1, 2003

The National DMP Coordinating Committee discussed this at length and has agreed on the following: instructors must have no direct interest in fishery, must have teaching/leadership credentials, must have knowledge about the industry /DMP, etc. The National DMP Coordinating Committee has concluded that setting requirements for trainers is not required as long as we have all the above mentioned controls in place. We will be focusing on the material that must be taught, DFO having the right to audit the training program, DMCs requirement to evaluate observers and provide refresher training where required, and on an annual basis DFO and the DMC are to review the training program and update program as required. The Coordinating committee will continue to monitor the training program to ensure its effectiveness.

b) Amend the DMP policy to provide criteria and guidelines for mandatory Dockside Observer refresher training.

b) Guidelines outlining the circumstances and extent that retraining is required need to be established. There is no need for ongoing retraining unless problems are identified through audits or other means.

Part E, Section 24 of the draft National DMP Policy and Procedures stipulates that "The DMC shall conduct ongoing evaluation of its Dockside Observers. Where deficiencies are identified, the DMC shall take the necessary and appropriate action, possibly including but not limited to, refresher training."

Rather than focus on mandatory refresher training, the National committee focused on the material that must be taught initially, DFO having the right to audit the training program, DMCs requirement to evaluate observers and provide refresher training where required, and on an annual basis DFO and the DMC are to review the training program and update program as required.

c) Evaluate for potential national application, the proposal developed by the Newfoundland Region to create multiple versions of Dockside Observer exams, adjudicated and marked by DFO approved examiners.

c) The recommendation has merit because it places onus on a Dockside Monitoring Company (DMC) to ensure all topics in the Policy and Procedures manual and the DMC training syllabus are covered. If a DMC designs and administers the exam, there is a perception that it can tailor the exam to meet limited training standards. A DFO-designed and administered exam would ensure Dockside Observers are fully knowledgeable about all duties.

The Maritimes Region feels that hiring is the purview of the DMC’s and that the course syllabus should be submitted to DFO and audits performed to ensure standards are met. This issue requires further discussion at the National DMP Working Group.

Has been addressed in new draft National DMP Policy and Procedures in Section E) DMC Operational Responsibilities:

E.2. When a DMC conducts the training of personnel, an independent DFO-approved examiner shall administer a DFO-approved exam. The DMC and DFO shall liaise to develop a minimum of 3 versions of an exam, containing information from the current training manual. DFO will provide a copy of the exam to the independent examiner for testing.

d) Develop guidelines and criteria for training and accreditation of temporary Dockside Observers

d) It is agreed that strict criteria need to be developed regarding the issuance of temporary designations of Dockside Observers. Due to the geographical nature of some regions, and the absence of a large workforce, temporary designation is used as a contingency measure to replace personnel who leave the program on short notice. Temporary designation is a requirement if the Department is to ensure the continuance of the DMP, but it should only be used when absolutely necessary and in accordance with specific criteria.

It was the decision of the National Coordinating Committee to only have a "Temporary Designation" while an individual is awaiting the certificate of clearance for security reasons. This view is based on the belief that no individual should carry out DMP duties without the formal training session. This is a problem for the Newfoundland and Pacific regions. Due to the huge geographical area covered by DMP in Newfoundland, and the number of individuals, etc, there are times when a replacement is needed on a same-day basis (ie. someone gets sick, moves or quits).

Pacific has a major herring fishery which lasts only two weeks. Temporary designation is a requirement as it is very difficult to retain staff to do this job for two weeks only, then ask them to come back next year for two weeks. This causes high turnover with mostly new staff every year. The DMC conducts extensive training and is satisfied that all observers are competent before each herring opening, but they are unable to have all observers designated in time to monitor the fishery.

So Nationally there are no temporary observers with the exception of Newfoundland (and Pacific for two weeks) where in exceptional circumstances temporary observers are deployed until a fully-trained observer can be deployed. Newfoundland does require the DMC to provide some training to an individual prior to deployment. Newfoundland will formalize these minimum requirements prior to the 2005 summer fishing season.

e) Develop a national protocol, which categorizes Dockside Observer performance lapses and infractions, and identifies DFO imposed sanctions for each.

e) The Regional Director General has the authority to designate an individual as a Dockside Observer. Inherent in that is the authority to revoke the designation if the individual fails to perform the duties of the position. Regions will be consulted on the development of standards that must be met, and classes of penalties that may be imposed.

Has been addressed in new draft National DMP Policy and Procedures, in section H. entitled "Guidelines for Revoking Designation of Individual Dockside Observers". The National committee has concluded that all infractions by observers that do not warrant revocation of designation will be addressed by contacting the DMC and reporting the incident.

11) The Director of Fisheries Management in the Pacific Region should ensure that the background checks of current and prospective Dockside Observers consistently include a check to verify they do not hold a commercial fishing licence.

12) The Director General of the Pacific Region should ensure that official DFO identification cards are issued to all designated Dockside Observers.

Pacific Region agrees with the recommendation. An implementation strategy is currently being developed.

January 1, 2003

The Pacific region now provides ID cards to all observers. Designated observers receive the regular designation ID card. Observers waiting for security clearances are issued temporary ID cards.

13) The DMP Regional Coordinators should audit the requirement for Dockside Observers to monitor at least five offloadings per year in order to maintain their designated status.

Due to the large number of Dockside Observers, it would be preferable to have a DMC verify that an employee has monitored at least five offloadings. The DMC’s claims can be spot-checked during Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) audits. This would reduce the departmental workload associated with this recommendation.

January 1, 2003

Sections D.8 and G.5 of the new Draft National DMP policy state:

D.8 Once designated, an observer must conduct a minimum of 5 off-loadings per year to in order to maintain designation.

G.5 A dockside observer’s designation will be considered for re-designation upon receipt of documentation from a DMC… if the individual is in good standing and has conducted a minimum of five landing verifications in the preceding 12 months.

14) The Director of Conservation and Protection in the Gulf Region should re-evaluate the skill and knowledge of the Dockside Observers who received only 32 hours of training to determine whether additional training is required.

Recommendation has been implemented.

Completed

In 2003, the Director of C&P in the Gulf Region ensured that all observers had received all of the required training necessary for designation as observers pursuant to the Fisheries Act. This will continue in the future as well.

15) The Directors of Fisheries Management in all DMP regions should ensure that an ongoing program is implemented to verify the continued eligibility of Dockside Observers.

Regions either have procedures in place or will be implementing procedures this year to ensure Dockside Observers meet arms-length requirements in addition to assessing capabilities.

January 1, 2003

In section G (Rules for Designation of Individuals as Dockside Observers) of the Draft National Policy states:

G.5 - A dockside observer’s designation will be considered for re-designation upon receipt of documentation from a DMC, if it is received at least 6 weeks prior to expiry and confirms that the individual is in good standing and has conducted a minimum of five landing verifications in the preceding 12 months. DFO must verify the observer is in good standing and continues to meet all the criteria of designation.

Directors of FM are aware of these requirements.

16) The ADM of Fisheries Management, in consultation with all DMP Regions, should ensure the coordination of the following activities:

a) The development of a fish landing site protocol that would form the basis of the protocol in all regions.

a) The Newfoundland Region has developed a Fish Landing Station Protocol in conjunction with stakeholders and the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The protocol is expected to be approved in 2002. Other regions may use the document as a basis for development of a protocol. The protocol should allow for regional tailoring to meet region-specific standards and requirements. Some aspects of a landing site protocol rely on provincial jurisdiction.

The Newfoundland Region has developed a Fish Landing Site Protocol. Provincial Fisheries is working towards observing this protocol when preparing Processor/buyer licenses. This protocol is being considered for adoption nationally, but this has not yet been completed due to regional differences. The DMP National committee will continue to move toward a national landing site protocol, however in the mean time each region has addressed the problem through the development of offloading site plans. Work to develop a National protocol will continue.

b) The development of a DFO Ice Allowance policy that would be consistently applied in all regions.

b) An ice allowance policy must be tailored to the handling practices of each fishery. The handling of a particular species may differ from region to region, or within a region. Nationally, it can be stated that an ice allowance should be established in accordance with some general principles, but the specifics of the allowances must be developed by the regions. The possibility of developing a national policy/principles will be discussed at the next meeting of the DMP working group.

The Scotia Fundy Region attempted to "review" the policy with the intent to establish a baseline of zero ice allowance. This suggested approach was considered to be completely unworkable by the industry who argued that the present ice allowance policy is working and there is no need to change. The region continues to try to get industry to change.

Pacific has a percentage allowance similar to Scotia Fundy. The region does not feel this is a problem and have not yet focused on this issue as they have been focussing on the designation process.

Newfoundland uses random sampling of ice content to determine total percentage of ice. This takes time but appears to be the fairest method. Other regions have resisted this due to the time required to take the samples.
In the Gulf and Quebec there is no ice allowance. Fishers ensure all ice is removed.

Fishing Associations have been reluctant to accept a change in ice allowance policy - when they have become accustomed to a certain method of allowing for ice. This has contributed to our inability to develop a National policy.

A decision to move toward a nationally consistent ice allowance policy would be controversial and would entail a significant workload in terms of consultations and negotiations. A policy decision at the national level would be required before moving in this direction.

c) The re-issuing of the Atlantic Dockside Monitoring Policy and Procedures document as a national document that would include the Pacific Region. This document would standardize, to the extent possible, all DMP policies and procedures to be applied in DFO regions.

c) The Atlantic Policies and Procedures document has been in place for a number of years. The document will be reviewed and amended over the next few months. This review process will include issues pertinent to the Pacific Region. At this time, it is not known what issues may arise with incorporation of the Pacific Region into the document.

April 1, 2003

This document was worked on extensively with participation from all DMP regions in 2004 and several versions of the draft were completed. The most recent draft document was vetted through Legal Services and was sent to all DMCs for comments (requested by August 2004). Pacific asked for extension due to many differences identified by the Pacific DMCs and other DFO officials. These comments were received on November 29th. We are now determining if the comments can be incorporated into the National policy, whether a regional annex will be required, or if we need to sign off two policies (east and west) temporarily until a National document can be agreed upon.

d) The development of a system to prioritize Incident Reports.

d) Regions will evaluate the feasibility of prioritizing incident reports. To be discussed at the next meeting of the DMP national working group.

The draft DMP Policy and Procedures document indicates the types of infractions where observers must complete and submit an incident report. This ensures that all serious infractions are recorded. The section of this policy entitled "Guidelines for Revoking Designation of Dockside Observers" identifies the types of breaches of the policy that are minor, serious, and major, and what action is required by DFO, and the DMC for each of these breaches. All incident reports submitted are now entered into the DFO Departmental Violations System.

17) The Directors of Fisheries Management in all DMP Regions should require that Dockside Monitoring Companies be charged with the responsibility of developing and maintaining site maps for all DMP landing sites.

The underlying issue is that there must be unobstructed line-of-sight from vessels being offloaded to the weigh scales, or some other mechanism for ensuring that there is no tampering prior to the fish reaching the scales. The current DMP Policy and Procedures require DMC’s to submit site plans to DFO. In some regions, this is being done, while other regions have requested that the DMC’s provide them.

January 1, 2003

The Newfoundland Region has developed a Fish Landing Station Protocol which places the onus on the owner of a site to provide a site plan in order to receive designation. This would seem to be more appropriate than requiring DMC’s to submit plans for sites that they do not own or control.

The Newfoundland protocol has been circulated to other regions and this has been discussed at the National DMP Committee meetings. The Committee is working on making the protocol National as there are regional differences. Until that time other regions are doing the following:

Scotia Fundy has hired a student to prepare site plans for offloading sites.

In Gulf all DMCs have provided all site plans.

Quebec has not yet addressed this issue. Their focus in the last year has been on investigations. They will be considering this in 2005.

Pacific region has also not addressed this issue. Presently their offloading sites do not have site maps.

18) The Director of Fisheries Management in the Gulf Region should require that as a Condition of License, estimated weight of catch be included in all hail-ins.

Internal discussions on changes to license conditions will take place in November and December 2002. Implementation timetable is subject to industry consultations.

Gulf Region to advise. Implementation timetable is subject to industry consultations.

In the Gulf Region, for the snow crab fishery, the conditions of licence no longer include the estimated catch clause under the Hail-in section. Following discussions with Industry, Gulf Region Resource Management and Conservation and Protection staff agreed that inclusion of estimated weight of catch in hail-ins does not need to be a mandatory requirement

The herring fishery for last spring still included the estimated catch in the hail-in portion of the licence conditions. The only reason it was in the conditions of licence at the start of the season was to help the DMC to forecast how many observers to send to do the monitoring of the vessels. The New Brunswick fishers complained, since there is a lot of competition between fishers competing to be able to achieve their catch quotas. In New Brunswick they have stopped including this info in the hail-in. The DMCs no longer need that information, since observers are always on the wharfs during the Herring Fishery. It’s a busy time and all vessels arrive at the wharf at the same time.

The region has indicated that they do receive estimates of catch in the hail-in, in Nova-Scotia, and PEI.

This issue will be reviewed again with the Gulf Region in 2005.

19) The Director of Fisheries Management in the Quebec Region should ensure that fishers and Dockside Monitoring Companies respect the stipulations in the Conditions of License of fishers to include estimated catch weight in the hail-in data captured by the Dockside Monitoring Company.

This recommendation has been implemented by the Quebec Region.

Completed

Quebec Region has confirmed that they ensure that all these conditions of license are respected.

20) The Director of Fisheries Management in the Pacific and Quebec Regions should ensure all Conditions of License include the requirement for vessels to hail-in landing time as well as requested off-loading time.

The Quebec Region has already implemented this recommendation.

In some fisheries in the Pacific Region, landing times and offloading times often coincide; however this provision is currently in place for all groundfish fisheries with DMP. For those fisheries where it is appropriate, conditions of license will be reviewed for conformance with this recommendation.

Completed

April 1, 2003

The Pacific and Quebec Regions have both advised that the landing times as well as requested off-loading times are hailed in as a condition of license for those fisheries where it is appropriate. Both have indicated that it is not practical or necessary in certain fisheries to include this requirement in the conditions of license. This issue will be reviewed again with Pacific and Quebec regions in 2005.

21) The Directors of Fisheries Management in all DMP Regions should ensure that Dockside Monitoring Companies do not accept hail-ins from other parties on behalf of a fisher, unless it is technically impossible for the fisher to contact the Dockside Monitoring Company directly.

Most regions agree with the recommendation. The Quebec and Maritimes Regions have some concerns. The current system of DMC’s accepting hails from parties other than fishers has been in place since the inception of the DMP. It will be difficult in the short term to move to a system where calls are only accepted from fishers. The introduction of new technology will present greater opportunities for fishers to call a DMC directly, however there will still be no means of identifying a caller. Although it is preferable to receive calls from fishers only, it would be a great challenge to ensure that only fishers make the call. In a fisher’s license condition, they are responsible for the hail-in. If they fail to comply, the Department has legal recourse.

Initial target date for implementation of new technology: calendar year 2003

The captain of the vessel fishing is to ensure that a hail-in is made, where the condition of license requires, in a timely manner to the DMC. The consensus of the National DMP Committee is that it is not important who makes the call as long as the captain is responsible for ensuring that the call is made. The new draft DMP Policy and Procedures document also requires that the DMC provide a confirmation # to the fisher for each hail-in which must be recorded and maintained.

22) The Directors of Fisheries Management in the Quebec, Gulf and Newfoundland Regions should ensure that all Dockside Monitoring Companies capture hail information in a database that is directly available to authorized staff in DFO, including Fishery Officers.

The three regions agree with this recommendation. A real time database that is readily available to Fishery Officers and that would eliminate the requirement for faxed information and would also facilitate overall coordination and auditing of DMP. The Gulf and Quebec Regions indicated that additional funding is required to modify databases. In the Newfoundland Region, some hail information in cod fisheries is now being captured in a database and made available to Fishery Officers. The Maritimes Region currently captures all hail information electronically through direct data entry by DMCs into the DFO database and is now working on a new database design that will capture hail-out information using voice recognition. Because the system uses voice recognition, the hail-in portion of the system is currently not feasible, due to the background noise problems. It is anticipated that this will be overcome in the near future.

All hail information is currently available to DFO personnel. The Maritimes Region, as part of the Objective Based Fisheries Management (OBFM) initiative, has also developed a system using the Virtual Data Center (VDC) that integrated hail-out and air surveillance information and produces an exception report in near real time comparing hail-out areas with sightings.

Initial implementation date for the new voice recognition hail-out system in the Maritimes Region is calendar year 2003. Other Regions will then evaluate the system for potential wider application.

Newfoundland: DMC’s currently capture hail-in information in hard-copy format by fisher. As mentioned above, the major DMC has recently started a process whereby the observer is entering data from a touch tone phone. The data is generated in an electronic format instead of hard copy. This is their first step in achieving this goal. Hail-in information is a more intricate measure to incorporate due to problems with transmitting information from vessels at sea.

Gulf: The DMCs enter all information that is registered in the logbook into the GFISP system. For certain fisheries, some estimated landings are provided during the hail-ins. For certain other fisheries, this is simply not possible, due to the huge number of vessels/fishers all docking at or around the same time. The Gulf’s GFISP system includes all of this information and all fishery officers have access to this DMP Data Entry System, which can generate reports or queries when looking for information.

Quebec: The DMCs enter all hail information into a database developed with the help of DFO. The data is transmitted electronically into their GAP system to which all DFO fishery officers have access. The problem is that there is a one week delay to ensure data accuracy.

23) The Directors of Conservation and Protection in all DMP Regions should ensure that Conservation and Protection staff enter Incident Reports into the Departmental Violations System. Action taken and results of investigations should be recorded in the system. Regional DMP Coordinators should provide at least periodic feedback on action taken to the Dockside Monitoring Companies.

All regions agree with this recommendation. The Departmental Violations System (DVS) has been modified to allow this information to be captured. Each region will develop a process to ensure periodic feedback to DMC’s.

January 1, 2003

The new draft National Policy & Procedures document specifies many situations where incident reports are required. The policy also specifies that these reports must be entered into the Departmental Violations System (DVS), including actions taken and results of investigations.

24) The Director of Fisheries Management, Newfoundland Region should eliminate the fixed container weight practice for establishing catch weight under DMP and re-instate the approved DMP procedure of determining the average container weight at each off-loading.

The recommendation has been implemented.

The Newfoundland Region has implemented a protocol for determining the average tare weight of containers used in the offloading process. If the same pan type is used in subsequent offloadings, the same tare weight will be used. If pans have been modified or new ones introduced, a new tare-weight sample shall be conducted.

Completed

The Newfoundland region has developed a protocol for ongoing monitoring of container tare weight, which will allow for adjustments to average container weight, when warranted. This method is acceptable to DFO, the industry and the fishers.

25) The Directors of Fisheries Management in the Newfoundland, Maritimes, Gulf and Pacific Regions should work with Dockside Monitoring Companies to make available to Dockside Observers, a distinctive form of clothing that readily identifies them as Dockside Observers.

There is general agreement with this recommendation; however, the imposition of costs to the DMC’s is a concern. DMC’s in some regions are providing distinctive clothing for their employees.

DFO should suggest rather than impose a clothing requirement on DMC’s.

January 1, 2003

The National Coordinating Committee has discussed this at length. The lack of funding by DFO and the cost to the DMCs are significant issues. Generally it is felt that distinctive clothing is a "nice to have", but not a major priority. Maritimes and the Gulf are experimenting with vests and the Committee will continue to consider the distinctive clothing option.

Quebec is trying out a new vest with the DMCs. The concept is working well but it is expensive for the DMCs.

26) Regional Directors of Fisheries Management should ensure greater focus on the development and use of DMP related information systems to support regional monitoring of DMP processes and Dockside Observer performance.

There is general agreement with this recommendation, although funding was identified as an issue by most regions. Work is currently ongoing on a number of fronts to improve data analysis capabilities and integrate existing data systems. DMP data will be an important element of this work, (e.g. the Maritimes Region initiative involving the Virtual Data Center, see recommendation number 22).

On-going

As mentioned in sections 1, 16 (d) and 23, a new Dockside Observer Checks System (DOCS) has been developed in the NCR to assist fishery officers in conducting audits of the dockside observers and to record and report the information gathered during these dockside checks. The system is scheduled to be rolled out to the regions by the end of this fiscal year.

The Scotia Fundy Region is in the process of developing a reporting capability for their MARFIS / VDC system. This system gathers information electronically from the dockside monitoring companies. The initial work that looked at catch composition is complete and looks quite promising. That is where they can compare observed catches versus unobserved catches in the same area and get an idea about high grading etc.

Scotia Fundy prepared a proposal that was going to advance the data integration but due to budget constraints the work has not advanced recently.

27) The Directors of Conservation and Protection in all DMP Regions should ensure that a comprehensive audit strategy is developed to regularly monitor the performance of Dockside Observers and related DMP dockside practices.

All regions agree with this recommendation.

Some regions currently have a monitoring process in place to audit Dockside Observers. Other regions will take similar action by January 2003.

January 1, 2003

The Newfoundland region has recently (October 2004) completed a final draft of a Dockside Monitoring Plan. This plan was developed in hopes that it will eventually be implemented nationally. It will be presented to the National DMP committee in the near future in hopes of implementing it nationally for the 2005 summer fishing season. The Plan directs fishery officers on all requirements of auditing dockside observers, DMCs and processors, and encourages fishery officers to interview officers of the Policy and Economics Branches of DFO and the Provinces to get a better understanding of how effectively the DMP is working and what could be improved.

All Atlantic regions are presently performing field checks and have set targets for fishery officers to meet.

28) The ADM of Fisheries Management should ensure that training programs for both new recruits, as well as for veteran Fishery Officers, cover all aspects of the DMP that would be necessary to enable Fishery Officers to effectively monitor the Program.

Some training is currently provided. The current training syllabus for new recruits will be reviewed to ensure that the DMP is adequately covered. In addition, an information package will be developed and distributed to current Conservation and Protection staff.

April 1, 2003

The Newfoundland Region has developed a training plan in the form of a Powerpoint presentation. It is presently used in the Newfoundland region to train new recruit fishery officers.

With the implementation of the Audit Plan discussed in item 27, the National Coordinating Committee will be further developing this training plan for all fishery officers nationally to include the proper use of the Audit Plan and entering field check information into the DOCS system, as well as how to deal with incident reports and their entry into DVS.