DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Magdalen Islands, March 20, 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
Magdalen Islands, March 20, 2001

• Owner-operator policy is fundamental, should be a principle and is the basis of a viable conservation program.
• Industry is prepared to participate in the co-management of the fishery (to varying degrees) but this does not mean that DFO can abandon its responsibilities.
• Ministerial discretion should be minimized and criteria should be developed to ensure that the exercise of that discretion is transparent.
• A dispute settlement mechanism is required, but some reservations on independent panels, given past experience.

Registered Speakers

• Gabrielle Landry, Fédération des Pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec
• Leonard Poirier, Regroupement des pêcheurs propriétaires des Iles-de-la-Madeleine

What we heard in the Presentations

• Overall agreement with the direction proposed in the discussion document.
• A caution that DFO should not confuse industry’s willingness to share decision-making (which is desired), with acceptance of the Department abandoning its responsibilities for access, allocation, monitoring and enforcement.
• A reminder that associations offer a means of involving harvesters in decision-making and, while they are prepared to participate, DFO policies and practices have, to some degree, encouraged fragmentation of organizations.
• Before embarking on major changes, co-management arrangements should be codified, the economic viability of existing participants should be protected, as should existing shares.
• Owner-operator and fleet separation policies should be maintained by DFO as they are instruments of conservation.
• DFO should consider a ‘reward’ to fishermen who conserve the resource.
• Once DFO has established that conservation has been met, the fishermen should actively participate in designing the fishing plan.
• The AFPR provides an opportunity to close some of the loopholes that exist in the owner-operator policy.
• Income stabilization programs exist in the agriculture sector; the same programs should be provided to fishermen.
• Inter-generational transfers of all licences should be allowed, and an exemption to capital gains tax should be sought.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion:

Conservation

• Conservation can be an active process, not simply the absence of harvesting.
• Scientific research and the precautionary approach are pre-requisite to conservation.
• Concern about the exactness of scientific data; DFO will have to work to increase the reliability of scientific data, particularly in troubled fisheries.
• DFO should include fisherman’s knowledge when providing scientific advice.
• Scientific research should continue to be DFO’s responsibility, with involvement from fishermen.
• The current professionalization initiative will likely provide positive results for conservation.
• Market demand should never take precedence over conservation; DFO must always put the resource first, allowing it to go through its spawning cycle to ensure a next generation of fish.
• Corporate concentration of licences must not be allowed.
• DFO should study the impact of various fishing gear on habitat and should promote selective fishing practices.
• As well as focussing on conservation of existing stocks, DFO should focus on restoration of those stocks that are under moratoria.
• The current fisheries management decision-making system needs an overhaul; the policy review is a start.
• Conservation goals should be set for each fishery; once conservation is defined, it must be followed.

Economic and Social Viability

• The Core policy discriminates against non-Core fishermen and processors who wish to acquire licences and become Core; the cost of the licences is an additional barrier.
• Core should be something that evolves over time and should allow 3-4 fishermen to jointly buy licences.
• Vessel replacement regulations are another barrier to becoming economically viable; everyone wants to increase the size and/or efficiency of their boat but along with the size comes the need for increased fishing effort to remain viable, thus increasing the pressure on the resource. The same thing is true for fishing gear; the more invested in gear, the more fish needed to maintain the gear.
• While it is recognized that a commercial fishing licence is a privilege (not a property right), in the real world there is a value attached to the licence which, like any other business, it is normal to retire, sell or buy.
• A concern that, while licence buybacks are normal, the question will still remain as to the value of a licence being given to First Nations bands; are these prices inflating the regular market?
• A concern that if licences are sold, the port of landing may change; First Nations should participate in the fishery within a structured framework.
• DFO should consider a policy that allows for co-ownership of licences; the suggestion was to introduce this in the ITQ 50-55 foot fleet and use volume control to limit access to the fisheries sector.
• Vessel replacement regulations should consider the reality that a modern 60 foot boat is more economically viable and capable of harvesting the same tonnage as a 100 foot boat built 20 years ago; DFO should control the quotas by harvesting capacity rather than boat length.
• A plea for DFO to help single-licence groundfish fishermen; there is no more income support, no more cod and a pitifully small allocation of other groundfish which is not enough for subsistence fishing, and certainly not enough to allow fishermen to be economically viable.
• If future shares of a resource were assured, fishermen might choose to under-fish the resource once economic viability was achieved, in case of a future downturn.
• Co-management agreements must be maintained and should, in some cases, be broadened; the ultimate goal for DFO should be to have joint management agreements in all fleets.

Access and Allocations

• DFO must stablize access to the resource and de-politicize the allocation process.
• In order to move from paternalistic practices to a de-politicized and transparent method of determining access and allocation, criteria such as adjacency, historic shares, fairness and equity, etc. will have to be defined and weighted. Any access and allocation policy that DFO develops should be applied consistently.
• DFO should make access to the resource more stable; fish harvesters are business people and need to plan for the future; fleet shares should be defined and recognized for a longer period (perhaps 5 years).
• DFO should entrench provincial shares and build on existing co-management agreements; any reservations on abundancy or resource fluctuations can be handled within the terms of existing or future co-management agreements.
• DFO should recognize commercial fish harvesters as first stakeholders when access to the resource is being decided, although this should not preclude access by other user groups.
• While it is recognized that a dispute settlement mechanism is required because of the cyclical nature of the resource and its consequent impact on the industry, past experience has not indicated that ‘independent panels’ are the appropriate mechanism. Likewise, the criteria for sharing in an expanding fishery, or the need to accommodate other users, should be clear and transparent.
• There is unanimous industry agreement that the current allocation system must change but it is unclear how industry will be consulted on any proposed replacement system.
• While some wish to entrench historical shares, others feel disappointment how the shares were established within each fleet; when a fishery re-opens based on historical shares the inshore fleet will be penalized.
• Concern that the recreational fishery is expanding (and taking more fish) while the commercial vessels remain tied up at the wharf; DFO should recognize that the recreational fishery accounts for a large number of fish.
• Concern that any new policy on access and allocations will not be able to correct past problems; perhaps the solution would be to apply the current policy differently on a fleet by fleet basis.
• DFO must continue to be responsible for access and allocation; there is a need for rules to be codified and consistently applied.
• All fleets and fishermen are ready for change.
• Before moving forward with any change to the current access and allocation system, historic provincial shares must be settled and agreed upon; in some cases, these shares were established by those no longer fishing.

Governance

• Some fleets are ready now to participate in co-management of the fishery which could be accomplished through existing structures.
• A recognition that DFO must retain its conservation objective and then involve the industry in harvesting decisions.
• The current advisory committee structure needs an overhaul.
• It is difficult (in some fleets) to define who constitutes the industry; in fact it may be easier to agree on principles of conservation and economic viability than on who should have a say in the management of the industry.
• Before proceeding, DFO must identify its stakeholders and with whom it will consult. Traditional commercial fishermen should be the priority stakeholder but it is also recognized that a forum is needed for all to participate, although this is not necessary for all species.
• Associations are ready and willing to assume more responsibility but will need financial assistance to expand current activities.
• Announcements of fishery openings and closures are always made at the last minute; if fishermen were participating in the process, they would have the information in advance and could plan accordingly.
• The federal government should review the safety equipment it requires to be on board all boats to determine if it is really necessary.