DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Goose Bay, April 10, 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
Goose Bay, April 10, 2001

• The needs of the North are different from those in the South.
• Adjacency - the people closest to the resource should get priority access.
• Access to stocks and allocation to Labrador fishermen.
• Boat size policies of DFO are unnecessarily restrictive, other mechanisms are available to DFO to meet conservation targets.
• Recent land claim settlements, awaiting ratification, will involve a co-management regime for the fishery which should address some of the governance issues for Aboriginal fishermen.

Registered Speakers

• Councillor Graham Letto, NLFM
• Claude Rumbolt, FFAW

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.
• The needs of Labrador are different from those in the South, the industry needs to change to help communities.
• Labrador did receive some benefit from the new crab benefit but did not receive the same benefit from the shrimp fishery because of allocations to other fleets.
• Labrador’s fishing industry is threatened and may fall below critical mass to the detriment of the local communities, unless the resources that are available in Labrador waters are allocated to the remaining fishermen. We cannot survive on the current allocation and the prospect is to lose the fishery entirely.
• We need to develop a policy for Labrador and the flexibility to implement it.
• The fleet separation policy must be strengthened to allow only harvesters to hold licences, increasingly fishermen are becoming harvesting employees of processors.
• Adjacency – a precedent has now been set by the allocation of Northern shrimp to PEI – and is giving hope to others who are not adjacent to the resource. The people closest to the resource should get priority access.
• We need flexibility to allow Labrador fishermen into the industry, the resource exists in our waters, we just need access to it.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• We have to maximize the use of the resource and avoid duplication of effort in how the resources are used.
• There is a lack of research funding, we should pool the expertise of harvesters and government.
• Key players are not here today, the forum is incomplete without the presence of the Innu Nation.
• The North is very different from the South, people from the South are now looking to the North and gaining access to our resources.
• A certain sense of despair and alienation with existing policies, it is hard to see how they apply in the North.
• Conservation is limited by knowledge, it is unlikely that we will ever know enough to manage for conservation.
• Conservation is like a code of ethics, it is something you live by, everyone knows what it is but it is hard to describe, it is not something for which we can hold DFO responsible except when something goes wrong.
• There has to be a balance between economic viability and conservation.
• Ecosystem-based models and applying the precautionary approach are unrealistic as they are based on a precept that we can manage the complexity of nature.
• Management decisions should be based on biological realities, with good science, DFO has to have acceptance that it tried its best.
• Vessel registration, safety and leasing regulations are extremely frustrating, it is impossible to improve our situation and compete with larger boats from other areas. The regulations should allow us to do what we want, that makes economic sense to us.
• The fishery of the future is based on conservation, science and research and must also include traditional fishermen’s knowledge if it is to work.
• Conservation must start from a sound scientific basis but the problem with science is that it raises more questions than it answers, in the absence of answers based on absolutes, decisions must be guided by experience.
• The discussion document does not mention Marine Protected Areas or marine parks, a park should be considered along the Labrador coast.
• Conservation requires increased research, for example there is no char monitoring being done, the biomass is unknown and DFO does not know their migration patterns.
• Since the decline of the cod stocks, we see harp seals everywhere. We know that they eat cod but now we are seeing them in the bays and fjords but don’t know what they are eating. DFO must increase its research into the effects of seals on fish populations.
• The de-politicizing of access and allocations will have an impact on conservation, without decisions taken for political reasons, conservation will be possible.
• Stocks should be managed locally, more research should be done on the impact and inter-relationship of species (predator-prey relationships), and harvesting techniques should also be studied.

Economic and Social Viability

• It is impossible to become economically viable within existing vessel regulations, the boat length restrictions should be lifted.
• We have been hit hard in Labrador, we have lost the commercial salmon industry to the sportsfishery and environmental groups, we cannot access resources directly adjacent and we should have access to the sealing industry.
• Larger boats would also facilitate increased hydrographic surveys by fishermen to supplement the surveys conducted by DFO, there are no up-to-date charts available for Labrador.
• To a certain extent, DFO is at the mercy of broader public policy, in some fisheries there is a need for social objectives (‘good for people, good for culture’).
• Many of those who are already viable are so because DFO has allocated well, but when is enough, enough? The resource should be shared, DFO should analyse the fleets, and audit fishing enterprises to more equitably distribute the allocations.
• Fishermen should go to the media to present their concerns about the effects of DFO policies on their communities.
• Fish harvesters should have more self-determination because they will develop the fisheries for the benefit of the communities.
• Adjacency must be addressed for Labrador fishermen to become economically viable, of the 32 Labrador communities, 25 are coastal, and depend on the ocean to make a living.
• Economic and social viability must come from the people involved in the fishery working with DFO.
• While there are programs for fishery diversification, Labrador needs fisheries development programs funded by both levels of government.

Access and Allocations

• It is hard to talk about access and allocations when we have neither.
• We have to move away from strictly political decisions towards decisions based on clear rules and principles of sharing.
• An arbitration mechanism is needed, it would take a long time for fishermen to agree amongst themselves.
• Access and allocations are at the heart of everything. Transparency in the process is a good place to start.
• We have people in the fishery who entered the fishery under past rules that should not have their positions entrenched in the review. The application of the principles of adjacency and historical dependence should be reviewed. In the case of Labrador, there is no historical dependence because there is no access to the resource.
• Access and allocation criteria need to be clearly defined.
• The money the government paid us for our salmon licences was not enough to buy a good Ski-doo.
• Ministerial (departmental) decisions are taken without adequate knowledge of the impact these decisions will have on communities, large boat fleets have more influence through the lobbying system, small boat opinions should be as important.
• The fleet separation policy must be maintained, the loopholes that are allowing processors and fish plants to buy licences must be stopped so that only harvesters have licences.
• DFO should look at sunset clauses on access and allocation decisions to allow for review rather than entrench what may be valid short term policies, to the detriment of the overall management of the fishery.
• DFO should address how it will deal with underutilized allocations.
• Changes to the current access and allocation system are needed. We have to move away from political decision-making and consider the needs and views of fishermen.
• Those involved in the recreational fishery in Labrador (salmon) are the only ones who benefit from the resource.
• The Sparrow decision, and DFO policy is that the Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes is given first priority, after conservation. In order to properly regulate this food fishery, the commercial fishery should close.

Governance

• Ad hoc policy development ("policy on demand") introduced to solve certain problems should be reviewed.
• There are a proliferation of different groups wanting to become involved in fisheries management. It is hard to see how all these interests can be accommodated in the decision-making process. DFO should deal with licence holders and other resource users and develop a process to accommodate other interests.
• Southern models of decision-making cannot be applied to the North and be made to work.
• Co-management requires solid information from adequate science and traditional fishermen’s knowledge.
• The first step towards co-management is to bring in rules-based decisions in fisheries management and a transparent process that avoids political intervention.
• Recent land claim settlements (the example was LIA), awaiting ratification by the Federal Government, will involve a co-management regime for the fishery which should address some of the governance issues for Aboriginal fishermen.