DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - St. Andrews, March 29, 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
St. Andrews, March 29, 2001

• The principles in the discussion document may be broadly supported but there is less likely to be agreement regarding how these principles will guide operations.
• Fish harvesters are by nature independent and entrepreneurial and DFO policies are inherently intrusive, therefore while DFO and fishermen should be seeking the same outcomes, they often find themselves in conflict.
• DFO must retain an enforcement capability and should put in place a system of economic incentives and disincentives that reward good stewardship.
• Owner-operator, fleet separation and adjacency should be more prominent in the document.
• Not all stakeholders are equal; when all stakeholders have an equal voice, the commercial fisherman will almost always be a minority voice.

Registered Speakers

• Greg Thompson, Fundy North Fishermen’s Association
• Floyd Hawkins, Retired Fisherman
• Dale Mitchell, Fundy Weir Fisherman’s Association
• Joseph Labelle, New Brunswick Seafood Producer’s Association
• Eric Allaby, MLA Fundy Isles
• Klaus Sonnenberg, Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association

What we heard in the Presentations:

• The discussion document correctly identifies the problems with the current management structure but falls short in proposing solutions.
• The most contentious issue dividing fishermen and DFO is the use of seasons as a conservation measure.
• Before beginning the process of defining a conservation-based fishery, DFO should define what is meant by ‘fishing’; it is not fishing when you are given an individual quota and you sell it to the highest bidder.
• A new system of allocation is needed, extending the duration of the current sharing formula will not address the unfairness of the system and will not bring people to the table to work on other problems.
• Social and economic considerations in policy are partially an allocation issue.
• Governance of the industry requires a partnering approach; to achieve this some, if not all, of the issues dividing the players must be removed.
• Those living adjacent to the resource should have priority in setting the harvest plan.
• The fleet separation policy should be retained by DFO to separate the harvesting and processing sectors and processors should be included in the management process.
• Any costs passed on to industry must be justified by their contribution to conservation and sustainability of the resource.
• As other users of the resources come along, they should have a plan as to how they will minimize any adverse effect on the commercial fishery.
• The precautionary principle must be used only as a conservation measure, always accompanied by a research initiative.
• DFO has not done its job with respect to aquaculture and native fisheries and has never listened to its officers in the field.
• Scientists and fishermen must have a relationship based on mutual trust and confidence, for the most part, scientists do not seem to trust or believe fishermen.
• Any reporting process that compromises confidentiality of information will not be supported by fishermen.
• Not all stakeholders are equal; when all stakeholders have an equal voice, the commercial fisherman will almost always be a minority voice.
• For fishermen to manage fisheries, we need strong fishing associations, with mandatory membership and mandatory dues.
• Fishing violations should be heavily penalized; DFO should work in cooperation with the Department of Justice to ensure that violators are prosecuted and heavily penalized for infractions.
• In attempting to frame policy that will contribute to a coherent, stable and predictable structure, DFO must ensure that those who invest in the industry are provided an opportunity to comment. Harvesting is only half the industry, processing must be considered an equal partner if we are to create an economically viable and self-reliant fishery.
• Investment in processing and market development is not feasible when access to the resource is managed on a short-term, politically expedient basis.
• The fishing industry requires a policy framework that rewards those who are good stewards of the resource, and penalizes those who do not contribute to long-term sustainability of the resource.
• A clear, stable and de-politicized access and allocation process is the most important aspect of the review and is the single most important policy area that requires updating.
• Participating in fisheries management decisions should be limited to those with the investment capacity to contribute to the growth of the sector and who are accountable for results.
• Harvesters and processors develop information and insight into species and environment, this information must feed into the decision-making process, along with information collected from other sources to improve our current level of understanding of various species and their interaction with the environment.
• DFO must retain an enforcement capability and should put in place a system of economic incentives and disincentives that reward good stewardship.
• DFO must give fleets more flexibility to increase their economic viability; DFO is urged to create a framework where access and allocation decisions can respect historic investment in a fishery, while not forcing the industry to operate in outmoded fleet structures or gear restrictions.
• An artificial barrier has been created between the processing and harvesting sectors; fleet separation policy is seen as a discriminatory policy against vertical integration for specific classes of industry participants.
• Harvesting and processing enterprises must have security in their access to the resource, greater security of access and greater operating flexibility once the allocations are made must be the foundation of the new policy.
• DFO must determine the criteria on which access and allocation decisions will be made, and then allow new structures within the fishery to administer those criteria.
• Industry should play a more direct role in access and allocation decisions, within a framework where future decisions are predictable and the basic principle of which is respect of historic participation in developing and improving the fishery.
• Once a framework is established, an independent decision-making body should be constituted to rule on disputes that cannot be settled within co-management fora; the details of this independent body must be worked out within the industry.
• Integrated coastal zone management plans should be the place where different uses of the ocean are discussed. The principle objective of this type of planning must be the establishment of a clear, stable and predictable process to allocate the oceans resources for shared use by different sectors.
• The economic and social objectives of fisheries management should be for the optimum sustainable benefit for the coastal economy adjacent to the fisheries.
• DFO should recognize the legitimacy of fishermen diversifying their efforts to include eco-tourism and small scale sea resource culture as part of their incomes. This "cottage industry" type of aquaculture would not be a primary livelihood but an income supplement, while not jeopardizing their status as a Core fisher.
• DFO’s current management policies reward intensity of effort and do not support multi-licence approach to fisheries, an inordinate emphasis is placed on catch history which has penalized responsible fishermen who have voluntarily left a fishery fallow to allow it to rebuild.
• A single species approach to fisheries management, and the strict exclusion of bycatch in many fisheries leads to high-grading and dumping, DFO should consider ‘trip limits’ on total dollar value, rather than species by species.
• A ‘one size fits all’ management will not work, the fundamentals of the policy may be the same but application will be different in different areas. The closer management is to the real fishery, the more likely it will achieve its objectives. If a management policy is derived on paper in Ottawa, it will suit the paper fishermen chasing paper fish, but in the real world it will not work.
• The policy review presents us with an opportunity to correct some management approaches that have not worked well, let it acknowledge that the fishing economy is an important contributor to livelihoods in coastal communities and not the job of last resort – it is a proud tradition.
• Some of the best conservation initiatives have been proposed by fishermen, DFO should listen to the fishermen, develop ideas with fishermen, work with fishermen and the policy that is arrived at through this process will be far more successful.
• DFO should move to recognize the common sense initiatives implemented by responsible groups in the industry.
• The proposal in the document to expand the scope of interested parties is not welcomed and will severely complicate our ability to cope with changes in our fishery.
• DFO has permanently adjusted the value of lobster licences through the Marshall buy back program to the extent that local crewmen are unable to develop financial plans that can account for such large capital licence acquisition costs. Fishermen are in need of repairs to infrastructure and new wharves were required five years ago; DFO should stop the differentiation and proceed with developments that are supported by the entire community.
• We need to have better communication and understanding between interested fishermen’s groups and DFO’s enforcement; an advisory group could bridge the gap in effective use of resources.
• DFO has abandoned its mandate to protect the traditional fishery and, in the process, has ignored violations by the aquaculture industry in habitat destruction, use of illegal pesticides, dumping of infected fish, and the placement of sites outside of approved locations.
• Careful and extensive consultation with commercial fishermen is required before changes to DFO’s policies are contemplated.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• There is a need to move away from a specific amount harvest (TAC) towards a focus on effort control and size and season control (for lobster).
• DFO should allow for management approaches that go beyond those proposed in the discussion document.
• DFO should increase its science budget, we need to know more about the stocks and to increase the credibility of stock surveys.
• We need a workable definition of conservation, while the precautionary approach sounds good on paper, it can be over-done.
• A precautionary and ecosystem approach should be applied to the aquaculture industry which should not be allowed to continue its current rate of expansion.
• If DFO’s goal is to provide a sustainable harvest year after year, it must recognize that there are peaks and valleys in the resource, you need to take advantage of the peaks and to plan for the valleys.
• The only consistent factor about population dynamic studies is that populations will change.
• We need consistent policies for oceans use.
• DFO’s mandate to protect fisheries habitat has not been well exercised in the past, its powers have been under-applied.
• While conservationists are supportive of the philosophies behind the principles in the discussion document, there is concern about how they will be operationalized, and DFO’s ability to achieve its conservation objectives.

Economic and Social Viability

• It is hard to understand federal and provincial jurisdictions on aquaculture, giving responsibility for aquaculture to the province worked at first but that is no longer the case.
• Change is inevitable, some problems come from our inability to make hard decisions.
• If the industry is to be self-reliant, more individual units have to become viable and allowed to make decisions for themselves, before you can have economic change, there will have to be a political change.
• Quick fixes for short-term political purposes lead to artificiality that threatens long-term viability.
• Allow fleets the flexibility to make decisions on an economic basis and social viability will follow.
• We need a forum for fishermen’s organizations to participate in the decision making process, with the additional costs the organizations are asked to assume, it is hard to even travel to meetings.
• By its nature, decisions taken by a group will benefit the group, decisions taken by individuals will be for the benefit of individuals with economics being the bottom line.

Access and Allocations

• Some parties feel they have been treated unfairly under the current sharing arrangements, before entrenching these arrangements, they should be reviewed for fairness. Those who are doing well under the current system will argue for its retention, while others who feel they have been unfairly treated will press for change.
• General agreement that a clear, open, transparent access and allocations process is required.
• Predictability and stability of allocations is required to make investments for the future.
• How the resource is exploited, and how it can provide the most benefit to Canadians, must be a government decision, but once DFO has established the high level criteria, it has fulfilled its mandate and should allow more decision-making by participants.
• The investment made in a developing fishery should be a criterion for access to that fishery.
• A process is needed for continued access to the resource, but should not be entrenched forever; it should protect individuals rather than gear types.
• An arms-length arbitration board whose decisions can only be over-ruled by Cabinet was supported.
• Any First Nations fishery should operate under the same rules and seasons as the non-native fishery, subject to penalties if their right to fish is not used for the purpose intended (the selling of fish that has been caught for food).
• DFO must specify the area in which natives can fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes and not concentrate this fishery in a small area.
• We need a process whereby allocations to the non-commercial interests can be considered.
• It is agreed that natives have rights, but so do commercial fishermen, if it is agreed that companies should not hold commercial fishing licences, then the same should be true for Indian bands – each licence should be in an individual’s name.

Governance

• A focussed discussion is needed on how co-management might evolve, some fishermen’s associations are not interested in being represented by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters and do not wish discussions to be held only with the Council.
• Shared decision making is a good idea and an education component is necessary – fishermen need to understand management issues and vice versa.
• If decision-making is devolved to the local level, it will be most effective.
• DFO has not convinced Aboriginals that the right to fish does not equate with the right to manage; as a consequence it might be necessary to create a new management arrangement.
• There are many questions that remain unresolved but co-management and shared decision making should be the goal of government, fish harvesters and processors.