DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Iqaluit, April 18, 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
Iqaluit, April 18, 2001

• Nunavut has not been included in the many research and economic development programs designed and implemented in the South.
• While there is general agreement regarding the principles in the discussion document, it does not adequately acknowledge the differences between the North and South.
• The lack of scientific research in the North.
• Objections to the notion of solidifying current access and allocation arrangements and fleet shares in Nunavut waters, this would entrench the inequitable arrangements that exist.

Registered Speakers

• Jim Noble, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (on the topic of Conservation)
• Carey Bonnell, Department of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut (on the topic of Economic and Social Viability)
• Peter Keenainak, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation (on the topic of Access and Allocations)
• Bert Dean, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (on the topic of Governance)

What we heard in the Presentations

• Canada’s Atlantic fishing policy has evolved for the benefit of southern Atlantic fishermen and for their fishing industry. As a result, the fishermen and the fishing industry of the North have been ignored in terms of benefits and strategies. Policies have not been flexible enough to deal with Northern concerns.
• It is realized that the reform process must take time and deliberation before concrete results are achieved, the discussion document will generate debate and discussion concerning overall policy directions and goals.
• Many of the proposed principles and policy options advocated by the discussion document are welcome improvements for all fishermen.
• While there was substantial agreement with the goals favoured by DFO, there should be a fourth objective – the concept of equitable access. Orderly management and shared stewardship should be built upon a foundation of both conservation of the resource and fair access to that resource. (This is consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA))
• Agreement with the definition of conservation but a recommendation that the concept should include a set of principles to further elaborate its meaning and to complement the policy elements. These principles, based on those agreed under the NLCA are:

• The maintenance of the natural balance of ecological systems within Canadian waters;

• The protection of aquatic wildlife habitat;

• The maintenance of vital, healthy aquatic wildlife populations capable of sustaining the harvesting needs of Canadian fishermen; and

• The restoration and revitalization of depleted populations of aquatic wildlife and wildlife habitat.

• Good science in the North is terribly inadequate, there is no DFO commitment to start or improve science for shrimp, turbot, crab and seals. (Two year Canada-Greenland turbot survey, jointly funded by DFO and NWMB is an example of good science leading to a fishery for Nunavut – the same research is needed on shrimp resources in northern waters).
• The Inuit of Nunavut have traditionally harvested fish for subsistence purposes and are almost exclusively a maritime people, with 25 of 26 communities located along the coast.
• Waters adjacent to Nunavut are rich with a variety of species, in 1999 Nunavut’s participation in the Atlantic fishery was limited to approximately 27% of the adjacent turbot resources (even less for shrimp), resource users in the south are allocated anywhere from 70-90% of their adjacent resources.
• Nunavut has no deep water port facilities or small craft harbours and only one processing facility, the fishery has the potential to provide substantial employment opportunities in communities where opportunities are currently limited.
• Over the past decade, Nunavut interests have been excluded from a number of federally funded economic development programs that support southern marine activities, including the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and Allocation Transfer Program.
• Fishermen cannot benefit from adjacent resources if the infrastructure is not in place, there are no adequate docking facilities, no small craft harbours, public investments are needed.
• Current DFO policies, such as the sector management policy, licensing and access and allocations policies with respect to turbot and shrimp, do not adequately address the needs of Nunavut fisheries interests. In addition, current policies are aimed at maintaining or reducing capacity, whereas Nunavut is trying to develop a capacity.
• New DFO policies will have to be developed, taking into account the special circumstances that exist in Nunavut and the reliance of coastal communities on the adjacent fishery.
• DFO must commit to on-going, multi-year research on both shrimp and turbot stocks in Davis Strait, the issue of science is directly linked with economic and social viability.
• The AFPR does not adequately address the role DFO intends to play in economic and social issues in the fishery. There is an apparent contradiction in current funding policies, which have DFO providing substantial financial support to the industry in the south and no support for the development of an economically viable industry in Nunavut.
• The Economic and Social Viability section of the document identifies a number of issues but fails to address many of the economic and social issues that exist from a northern perspective. Section 4.4.1 (issues) should be expanded to provide an examination of the difficult issues facing the northern fishing industry.
• Section 4.4.3.2 identifies a set of constraints within which licence holders and fleets could make their own fisheries management decisions. A number of these constraints need to be addressed from a northern perspective.
• The document’s reference to maintaining geographic distribution of economic opportunities is not supported – suggested this be changed to "establish a geographic distribution of economic opportunities within a diverse fleet structure".
• Section 4.4.3.3 identifies a number of policies that could be developed to diversify local fisheries economies. It is hard to see how such policies can be implemented in Nunavut with no level of public investment from the Federal Government. Nowhere else in Canada is the potential of emerging fisheries stronger than that of Nunavut yet vast regions of the Nunavut Settlement Area are untouched by experimental and exploratory activities. Additional research is needed.
• The recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Nunavut and the Federal Government recognizes a joint responsibility in the development of a healthy, viable fishery in Nunavut and states that "DFO agrees to support the priorities of the Government of Nunavut in the pursuit of fisheries-related economic development funding from various agencies." The time has come to operationalize this MOU.
• Industry overall is in favour of the overall message identified under the Access and Allocations section of the discussion document, although this appears to conflict with the section on Economic and Social Viability.
• Nunavut businesses should be given equal opportunity to access and allocations before the concept of ‘fleets and licence holders getting the same proportion of the TAC each year’.
• In addition to being at a disadvantage in terms of available programs, Nunavut organizations are disadvantaged in access and allocations.
• Applauded the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for indicating that ‘adjacency does not mean exclusivity’; encourage DFO and the Minister to expand on this and include historical dependence.
• DFO needs to explore other models for access, allocation and sharing for northern shrimp (examples were enterprise allocation program, "last in, first out", industry management of certain areas, and other self-management models).
• Canadians should be encouraged to work with Canadians, if fish is not harvested by a Canadian fleet, the allocation of unharvested fish should be allocated to other Canadians first, before being given to foreign interests.
• Ecosystem management must be adopted, DFO sciences needs a greater emphasis on stock assessment of the whole Atlantic Region.
• The food fishery should have priority over the commercial fishery in Nunavut.
• A request for clarification of the definition of ‘Aboriginal groups or communities’.
• Many of the rights that Inuit have protected in the NLCA relate to the marine environment and harvesting. Examples are Article 5 of the NLCA which establishes the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) as an Institution of Public Government to act as a co-management body between government and Inuit, and Article 15 which relates to wildlife management and harvesting beyond the marine areas of the Nunavut Settlement Area.
• The three objectives of conservation, orderly management and shared stewardship are supported.
• The NWMB has worked with communities, stakeholders and Government to develop a made-in-Nunavut approach that strives for many of the goals of co-management laid out in the discussion document.
• DFO should work closely with the NWMB, the Nunavut Fishery Working Group and the fishing industry in Nunavut to achieve the same goals.
• Agreement that we should move away from a top down approach to fisheries management, it is important that communities impacted by decisions, or wanting to develop a fishery in Nunavut have a say in the management and are involved in discussions.
• There are aspects of the NLCA that can provide the basis for DFO programs in Nunavut that have not been addressed by the Department. Provision for the NLCA should be addressed in the policy framework.
• DFO should look into an expanded definition of co-management that recognizes the role the NWMB as well as other institutions of public government established in the north have in the co-management process.
• Some communities have seen positive development (i.e. the Pangnirtung processing plant).
• DFO should consider additional funding for activities in the North.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• Ghost nets – gill nets that are lost or abandoned – post conservation problems, it is not just the nets that are lost, there is usually fish in the nets which become a contaminant to other fish.
• We must have better fishing practices as conservation is paramount.
• The operational implementation of conservation from a Nunavut perspective will present a challenge. The situation is very different in Nunavut, in the absence of science, the precautionary approach serves as a deterrent. The idea of enforceable rules is a good concept but implementation will be difficult in Nunavut.
• There is no at-sea surveillance in Nunavut waters, DFO must increase its enforcement in the North.
• All fishermen must respect conservation measures to ensure the resource is there for future generations, it is our responsibility as parents to introduce our children to solid conservation measures.
• Conservation should be defined on a species by species basis.

Economic and Social Viability

• In order to make fish harvested and/or processed in the North competitive with southern products, subsidies are needed, particularly transportation subsidies.
• We have been unable to access many HRDC training programs that could have helped us.
• Because Nunavut does not have an economic development agreement with the federal government, it misses out on access to funding.
• Emerging fisheries are real opportunities in Nunavut which can turn our fishing industry into a major player but we need public investment for this to happen.

Access and Allocations

• Access and allocation decisions are currently politically driven and place the North at a disadvantage, if they were economically driven, it would be a different story. They should be more responsive to fishermen’s needs.
• Nunavut has major objections to recognizing current access and allocation arrangements, and fleet shares in Nunavut waters – this would codify existing inequities between the North and the South. Priority access to Nunavut should be given.
• Nunavut is perpetually having to deal with national programs that may not be appropriate for the North, principally because they were designed in the South, for the South.
• We need flexibility in all new policies to allow them to adapt to the particular needs of the North, consistent with the legally binding NLCA, and the capacity to anticipate future claims.
• If politics are separated from access and allocation decision making, Nunavut will be at a disadvantage.
• Allocation of shrimp to Nunavut is more of a "paper shrimp" than a "swimming shrimp". The area provided to Nunavut fishermen has few shrimp available to be fished, therefore the allocation at whatever level is moot.
• In the North there is one rule – those adjacent to the resource should get priority access but those who live in Nunavut need access to southern resources to become economically viable.
• It is hard to reconcile Nunavut’s need for access and allocation and decisions that have been taken. For example, Nunavut has not been allowed to harvest that portion of the TAC that is left in the water because it is not wanted by the southern fleets (turbot was the example).
• Re-allocation of unharvested fish, when the resource is stable or increasing, should be considered. The lack of science is hindering Nunavut from gaining access to resources.
• The Independent Panel on Access Criteria will have to consider the special needs of Nunavut.
• We believe the fish are out there but without adequate science, there is no way of proving it.

Governance

• We agree that DFO’s role must change but without research and surveillance in the North, we do not believe it can fulfill its mandate and question its ability to implement much of what is proposed (in Nunavut).
• We need a commitment to long-term, comprehensive research.
• Nunavut (the Arctic fishery) is remote from and different from the larger Atlantic fishery based on Canada’s east coast, it is thousands of miles away from the decision makers.