DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Clarenville, April 6, 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
Clarenville, April 6, 2001

• Communities are stakeholders in the fisheries and must be involved in the fisheries management process.
• General support for the principles in the discussion document but concern about the ability to operationalize them.
• No room for new entrants or for participation of a wide range of stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Registered Speakers

• Fred Best, Mayor, Town of Clarenville
• Tom Osborne, Mayor, Town of Arnold’s Cove
• Michael O’Connor, Highliner Foods (National Sea Products)
• Steve Moyse, Discovery Regional Development Board

What we heard in the Presentations

• Fishing communities must be fully integrated into the decision-making process.
• Canada should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and ensure that the allocation criteria set forth by its administrators are strictly adhered to.
• DFO should consider the options of community-based co-management through the development of community-based management boards and the issuance of community development quotas.
• Science and research are key, an adequate science budget should be allocated. The best informed fisheries management decisions regarding conservation will come from a combination of fishermen’ traditional ecological knowledge, data from fisheries science and community input.
• There should be zero tolerance for blatant disregard of fundamental access to resource principles (northern shrimp was the example).
• Canada should extend the current 200-mile jurisdiction to include the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.
• Unless current practices change, resources within 3Ps and other divisions will continue to decline. The practice of allowing ghost nets must end.
• The problem of harvesting and processing over-capacity continues to cripple communities that rely on the benefits of exploiting a fishery. Communities must become more economically resilient to the unstable nature of the fisheries resources upon which they depend.
• Canada must control and protect its territorial waters, effective enforcement and monitoring control must be implemented.
• Conservation should remain the focus of all three levels of government, it is one thing to propose enforceable rules but the resources must be provided to conduct that enforcement.
• The concept of ecosystem management requires extension of jurisdiction to include the entire continental shelf.
• If we are to work towards a sustainable resource for future generations, the concepts of ecosystem management and government policy decision-making must be integrated.
• Community leaders are accountable to their residents, a mechanism should be designed to recognize their input on the economic and social viability of coastal communities. Two options for including community leaders in the decision making process: review the integrated fisheries management process and the Agreement on Interjurisdictional Cooperation to recognize community leaders as a legitimate stakeholder in the process.
• There is an inconsistent regime for making management decisions on access and allocations. A number of stakeholders have to be accommodated when making decisions and if DFO is going to pursue a transparent process, the resources to do so must be provided.
• The principles of adjacency and historical attachment must be addressed.
• Top down management has not been effective in the promotion of shared stewardship of the resource, this will come if all are held accountable for their decisions.
• Overall the discussion document is a good starting point and probably overdue.
• The goal of promoting sustainable and conservation oriented fisheries and an economically sound industry is achievable if it is shared by all industry stakeholders and supported by clear and comprehensive fisheries management policies.
• We object to broadening the stakeholder pool in the fisheries management decision making process beyond those with a traditional presence in the commercial fishery.
• It is paramount to first obtain ‘best use’ objectives within the commercial fishery before considering expanding the number of stakeholders with access to the fishery.
• The new policy must encourage the expanded use of self-regulating or self-adjusting systems (examples are quasi property rights regimes such as ITQs and enterprise allocations).
• NAFO is a poor example of an appropriate and enforceable legislative and regulatory framework for fisheries management, we need to pursue extending our jurisdiction outward or establish a new multilateral organization to replace NAFO.
• Access and allocation decisions are the responsibility of DFO and should be made using proper criteria. Reference to the need to change the existing process by moving responsibility to the fleets enables DFO to avoid its responsibility and accountability for access and allocation decisions, even though the Minister retains final discretion on issuing of licences.
• Newfoundland’s increased capacity to harvest shellfish should not undermine the traditional/historic groundfish harvesters when the shellfish fishery declines and groundfish stocks increase.
• Significant capacity has been removed over the last decade, this should not be viewed by government as an opportunity to introduce new entrants into existing fisheries.
• The access and allocation problems in existing fisheries are directly related to DFO’s tentative approach to the issue.
• Within the constraints of conservation, licence holders and fleets should make their own business decisions and be accountable for the consequences, the concepts of self-reliance and co-management are thus supported subject to allocation and access concerns.
• IFMP’s should be left to fisheries stakeholders and another process established to integrate fisheries and ocean access issues such as oil and gas, recreation, eco-tourism, cable laying and mining. The urgency for such a process will vary by region.
• Additional resources are required for science to strengthen the management decisions being made; there is a sense of urgency to this.
• The recreational or food fishery should be examined to determine the impact that it has, not only on the stock status, but the social status, too. The management of this fishery should be examined and options identified to minimize the impact on the stock and maximize the benefits to coastal communities.
• There is an inherent flaw in DFO’s view of where communities fit in the decision making process, in the document they are identified under ‘other interests’.
• While not advocating that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador take over responsibility for fisheries management, but there should be better mechanisms for the sharing of information between the levels of government and industry – decisions regarding specific fisheries should be taken closer to the fisheries.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• The conservation ethic is well understood when applied locally but conservation seems to be thrown out the window when it comes to international issues – we cannot make the distinction between Canadian and foreign vessels, all should operate under the same guidelines.
• The department is trying to be too many things in too many areas (Oceans Act) when it does not have the resources to meet basic science requirements. The ideals cannot be argued but is this realistic, can DFO actually operationalize the conservation agenda?
• All fishermen in Newfoundland are conservationists but at what point do we stop re-building stocks? We do not know what impact increasing stocks have on other species – there could come a point when we are being over-cautious.
• Some fishing gear has a reputation as ‘bad’ but the onus is on the operator to fish responsibly.
• There should be mixed gear fishing, not just hook and line or gillnet fisheries and discards should be minimized if conservation is to happen.

Economic and Social Viability

• Ways have to be found to bring all interests to the table. It is particularly important to consider the views of fishermen when taking management decisions.
• Knowledgeable people have to be consulted, and involved in decision making but in the final analysis, it is the fish harvesters and processors that have the most knowledge.
• Institutionalized community role should not result in community quotas or other mechanisms that limit the value of individual enterprises.
• Future management of the fishery will require a cross-sector board to arbitrate and balance interests to remove political interference.
• DFO should continue to manage the fishery in consultation with fish harvesters.

Access and Allocations

• There is no mention of the owner-operator policy in the discussion document, the application of the policy is being undermined by the lack of funding available to fishermen, in many instances control of the licences is being transferred to corporations and other investors.
• There is no more room for new user groups in groundfish and insufficient enforcement resources to control the food fishery.
• Adjacency should be an underlying principle when taking access and allocation decisions.
• Access and allocations should continue to be DFO’s responsibility, with consultation with the fleets and input into fishing plans.

Governance

• Data collected by observer programs should be made available to harvesters, right now it is difficult to get access to the data – this relationship should be open.
• Stakeholders should be restricted to licence holders – the inclusion of a broad range of ‘outside’ interests increases conflict and can bring the planning and management processes to a standstill.
• It will be a challenge to develop a process that will work, it will have to be carefully thought out.
• The owner-operator policy has to be maintained to avoid the corporate concentration of licences, and the purchase of licences and quota by those with an interest only in money, not the community. The loopholes in the owner-operator policy must be closed.
• Every enterprise should have the right to transfer quotas to the boat of their choice, right now fishermen are taking chances with safety by pushing their boats to the limit, both in terms of distance from land and in seasons. ITQs should be used to provide for the continued viability of the small boat fleet.