DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Blanc Sablon, March 21, 2001

Foreword

The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review (AFPR) is being undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to develop a consistent and cohesive policy framework for the management of Canada’s East Coast fish stocks. The process of the review includes consultations with provinces/territories, aboriginal interests, the fishing industry, and other interested parties.

The work of the AFPR is being done in two phases: Phase I will produce a policy framework, which will address the questions: What do we want to achieve in fisheries management over the long term? What are our objectives and principles? Phase II will establish priorities and begin to operationalize elements from the policy framework (developed in Phase I), and will answer the question: How do we get there?

The purpose of the public consultations held in March and April was to receive comments and feedback about Phase I of the policy review – the development of a policy framework. A discussion document "The Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast – A Discussion Document on Policy Direction and Principles" was prepared by DFO. The document which sought to provide a focus for stakeholder input on policy directions and options, was used to guide the round of public consultations held across Atlantic Canada.

The discussion document outlines broad objectives and proposes several principles centred around four main policy themes: conservation, economic and social viability, access and allocations and governance. It also contains a section on roles and responsibilities, which clarifies DFO’s role with respect to other federal departments and agencies, other governments, the commercial industry, and other resource users.

The document was released on February 7, 2001, and distributed to stakeholder groups and others who had indicated an interest in the Review process. In addition, a brochure, which summarized the document, was mailed to every commercial fisheries licence holder in Newfoundland, the Maritimes, Quebec and Nunavut (65,000 copies).

The 19 public consultation sessions held throughout Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Nunavut in March and April, 2001, were open to all and a broad cross section of those with an interest in the Atlantic fisheries came to the sessions and expressed their views.

The same format was followed at each meeting. The meeting began with a brief discussion about the purpose of the meeting and the agenda for the consultation. This was followed by a short presentation which summarized the discussion document. Registered speakers who indicated they would like to make formal presentations were next to speak. Finally, a round table discussion on the four policy themes was held, followed by a brief discussion on next steps including options for additional input.

We indicated that written summaries of the 19 public consultation sessions would be provided to those who attended the meeting and who had signed our registration sheet. This report honours that commitment. The summaries are divided into three parts. First, re-occurring issues or themes from the public meeting which include comments from the formal presentations and round table discussions are provided. The themes are included for ease of reference and should not be interpreted as having more importance than individual comments. Second, a list of speakers who made formal presentations and the highlights of their presentations are noted. Third, a summary of the comments provided during the round table discussion organized by policy themes, is also provided.

In addition to holding public consultation sessions, we invited groups and individuals to submit written comments on the discussion document (with a deadline of May 31, 2001).

Fisheries and Oceans
August 2001

Themes arising from the Session
Blanc Sablon, March 21, 2001

• Agreement that conservation is paramount and that fishermen’s knowledge should be considered when setting harvesting plans.
• The term ‘adjacency’ should be defined; the lack of a definition and consistent application is resulting in conflicts between fleets and between fleets and DFO.
• The recreational fishery (‘food fishery’) can have a major impact on the cod stocks and is unfair to the commercial groundfish fisherman.
• Fishermen should be consulted when aquaculture sites are proposed.
• Economic viability is fragile, particularly in this region, fishermen require support and continued consultation with DFO to assist them in becoming viable.
• Strong support for additional participation in decision-making.

Registered Speakers

• Jean-Richard Joncas, President Polyvalent Fishermens’ Association, Old Fort, Blanc Sablon

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion:

Conservation

• Inshore fishermen have done their share with respect to conservation unlike ‘big companies’ fishing the offshore.
• Fishermen’s views have gone unheard in the past, scepticism that this will change under a new policy.
• DFO should consider how conservation interacts with economic viability; conservation should be balanced with exploitation, while considering the situation of the small boat, inshore fisherman who only has access to cod.
• If the region is to be sustainable, it has to be supported by DFO; the economic rebound is greater in this area than in many others.
• The offshore fleet is still fishing; DFO should look at the broader picture of cod migration patterns and should conduct a review of allowable mesh size.
• If DFO is serious about conservation, all fishermen should be allowed to participate. For example, groundfish fishermen should be allowed to provide advice on conservation of species other than groundfish.
• If DFO proceeds with an ecosystem-based approach, it should consider predator-prey interactions (particularly the affect of seals on cod).
• The food fishery has to be controlled as it is a threat to both conservation and the economic viability of the commercial fleet.

Economic and Social Viability

• Viability is relative and should be compared on a fishery to fishery basis.
• Fishermen should be left to define their own viability based on individual circumstances.
• A plea for DFO proceed with caution when defining the economic viability of a fleet, to consider the needs of the inshore fleet first as the situation in the inshore groundfish fleet is unprecedented.
• While some present supported retention of the owner-operator policy, others recommended that it be abandoned and that crew members be allowed to fish a licence.
• After the various licence retirement programs, it is now normal to have at least two Core fishermen on a boat; the ratio of fisherman to helper has changed and in many cases, fishermen have now merged enterprises.
• DFO will have to define what it means by the term ‘enterprise’.
• DFO should review its policies and eliminate or revise those that have conflicting goals; there are also questions of equity and consistency of policies and regulations between areas, regions and provinces.
• There is inadequate consultation around aquaculture siting and other activities that affect fishermen; if modifications are made within a zone, all who fish in the zone should be consulted.
• DFO should produce and provide timely management plans immediately following industry consultations; under the current system fishermen often receive the plans after the fishing season ends.
• If the commercial fisherman is taken care of, he in turn will re-invest in the community; the fleet separation policy should be retained to ensure that processing plants and companies cannot hold licences and set quotas.
• A ‘one size fits all’ approach to economic and social viability will not work but it is time to start the debate by fleet, by species and by area.

Access and Allocations

• DFO should review its vessel regulations and other policies affecting vessel operations (i.e. under the current system, a fisherman must rent a boat for a full year and can lose a season’s fishing because of a breakdown). Suggestion is that fisherman be allowed to ‘buddy-up’ for the balance of a season.
• An allocation of fish should be given to those who are able to fish it or who can gear up their boat to fish.
• Aboriginal entry into the fishery should require entrants to respect conservation rules and participate in more than the most lucrative fisheries, such as lobster and crab.
• The aquaculture industry has a responsibility to regulate its impact on the marine environment and habitat; siting information should also be communicated to commercial fishermen in the area of a proposed site.
• Commercial fishermen should have priority access to the resource; if it is determined there is a surplus, then other users such as recreational fishermen, should be considered.
• The definition of ‘adjacency’ should be given a priority by DFO and should be communicated to all commercial fish harvesters; all access criteria should be consistently applied.
• Strong recommendation that the Independent Panel on Access Criteria consult widely with commercial fishermen.
• DFO will have to consider whether or not a commercial fishing licence gives the licence holder the right to earn an income; the licence permits the licence holder to fish but not necessarily to make a living.
• DFO should review its Core policy and consider changing the criteria; there is an inequity between Core fishermen and licensed, non-Core fishermen when it comes to allocations and licence retirement programs.
• DFO should base its access and allocations policy and decisions on ‘need’ rather than ‘greed’.

Governance

• Industry should be part of the decision-making process and be able to appeal if they don’t agree with a decision.
• Many parts of the industry are ready now to assume more responsibility.
• Consideration should be given to a separate agency for conducting fisheries research; there seems to be a conflict of interest when both the assessors and managers are in the same department.
• The lack of science and funding for research is becoming a major problem.
• Science’s inability to incorporate fishermen’s knowledge into the assessment process provides a poor basis for decision-making.
• The resource must be harvested in a way to ensure its sustainability; more discussion and consideration should be given to the type of gear used to harvest the resource.
• Every fisherman has different needs and must be able to make decisions for themselves; this all hinges on sharing the resource more equitably.
• While it is recognized that not everyone can be treated alike, fishermen should be afforded the change to make a decent living when the resource is abundant.