DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - St. John's, April 11, 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. John's, April 11, 2001

• Owner-operator and fleet separation should be principles and more prominent in the document.
• Community viability requires community input in fisheries management.
• Science budget must be increased to answer questions on which conservation decisions can be based.
• Thousands of jobs and many communities depend on fish processors – the processors must have a role in fisheries management.
• Some form of harvester-processor integration should (and will) take place to ensure the economic viability of both sectors.
• Control of the Continental Shelf is critical to conservation of species.

Registered Speakers

• Owen Myers, Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation
• Winston Fiander, Canadian Executive Service Organization
• Earle McCurdy, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
• Mayor Derm Flynn, President Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities
• James Chidley, Vice-Chairman, Southern Shore Inshore Fishermens’ Action Committee
• Grace White, CanJam Trading Limited
• Councillor Peter Miller, City of St. John’s
• Carl Philip Parsons, General Public
• Gus Etchegary, Fisheries Advocate
• Alastair O’Rielly, Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador
• Boyce Taylor, General Public
• Councillor George Cooper,Town of Grand Bank

What we heard in the Presentations

• Conservation must embrace a number of principles to guarantee a sustainable fishery resource for future generations:

• Fish must have a food supply – the harvesting of krill and capelin should be prohibited (the Fisheries Act should be amended to ensure that only through a legislative amendment would harvesting be allowed).

• The most obvious explanation must be accepted as the answer to a scientific question, only when the simplest explanation has proven to be incorrect should the enquiry move on to test successively more complex hypotheses.

• The catch rate of the commercial dragger fleet is not an index of abundance.

• Protection is conservation, unless the fishery is being adequately policed and the Fisheries Act is being enforced, there is little chance for conservation. DFO must not transfer or download its jurisdiction over the inland waters of Newfoundland.

• Wild stocks of fish must have priority over fish farming, (they are at risk because of aquaculture practices).

• We have failed to learn from the Northern cod disaster and are repeating the same mistakes in the shrimp and crab fisheries.
• The policy review offers us an opportunity to reverse the decline of rural Newfoundland and Labrador through management processes and mechanisms that will empower fishing communities and remove existing barriers to their sustainability.
• While communities have responsibility for development, they have no control over the resource that is critical to their present and future well being. Control rests with Ottawa, the province, the big industrial players, and the unions with communities as little more than observers.
• Communities are more than just ‘other stakeholders’, the document is disappointing as it does nothing to correct the vulnerability of the communities where the fishery is at the heart of their economic and social well being.
• The fishery cannot be managed as a stand alone but rather as an integral part of all ocean resource activities, a community-based management approach is the only feasible way to manage the complex interplay of variables. Putting emphasis on resource users is too narrow a focus, it should be expanded to optimizing the economic and social outcomes for communities.
• The most appropriate way to serve the public interest and achieve resource sustainability now and in the future is to entrust coastal communities with stewardship of the fishery. Shared stewardship of the fishery with users, as advocated by DFO in its discussion document, is fundamental to the community-based management model, but trusteeship of the fishery resource should remain in the public domain and transferred to the fishing industry in the best interests of the community at large.
• New community and regional institutions will be needed to implement community-based management concepts and practices without diminishing roles played by other levels of government, unions and the industry. Any move towards community management of the fishery will have to be carefully considered in consultation with communities and all stakeholders.
• Agreement with DFO’s conservation goals as stated, in addition, enshrining principles such as the independent owner-operator and fleet separation policies will contribute to the long-term viability of the fishery and fish resources as well as the people and communities who depend on those resources.
• Responsible fishing practices which are encouraged through provincial professionalization programs will assist in the conservation, sustainability and long-term viability of our fish resources, the fishing industry and our coastal communities.
• A fishing licence is a licence to fish and should not be handed out to people who have no intention of fishing and no background in fishing; fishing rights are a heritage of coastal communities, not a commodity to be peddled in Toronto like shares in the high technology industry.
• The discussion document makes disproportionate reference to new entrant users: aquaculture and recreational fisheries while FRCC has recommended against an increased recreational (food) fishery.
• Eleven recommendations:

• The AFPR final report should include confirmation of the fleet separation policy for <65’ vessels.

• Fishing licences in the <65’ sector be issued only to fish harvesters who have met the professionalization requirements that exist in their respective regions. In Newfoundland and Labrador this would mean licence holders would have to be holders of Level II Professionalization certificates.

• DFO use the AFPR exercise as an opportunity to conduct consultations with the harvesting sector for the purpose of introducing appropriate flexibility into the vessel replacement policies.

• The final AFPR policy statement include a recommendation for measures to close the loophole which presently permits the separation of legal title from beneficial use of fishing licences.

• A full study of the public policy considerations related to the inter-generational transfer of licences, including an exploration of the different ways and means that would facilitate inter-generational transfer. This would include such options as capital gains exemptions on the disposition of fishing property, national fish harvesters retirement savings plan, and any other approach that would give fish harvesters more control over the transfer of their fishing enterprise.

• The adjacency principle be enshrined as a permanent feature of DFO fisheries management policy in conjunction with recognition of historic dependence on a particular resource as the basis for continued access.

• The processing of industrial shrimp in Canadian peeling plants be a condition of licence of the Canadian offshore shrimp fleet.

• Allocation decisions continue to be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans subject to allocation policies and priorities that are clearly identified and made public.

• The AFPR should recognize the reality that the fishery is dominated by multi-licensed enterprises and should recommend that policy be developed to optimize the prospects for financial stability of the various fleet sectors which make up the Core fishery.

• Continuing support for professionalization from DFO as the appropriate policy framework in which to enshrine the owner-operator principle and the fleet separation policy.

• DFO should recognize the re-opening of closed fisheries or the continuation of existing fisheries at TAC levels far below traditional levels as a special situation in which priority would be given to fleets depending on adjacency, length of attachment to the particular fishery, availability of other fishing opportunities and other criteria.

• 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’s 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.
• Fishing communities have much to gain by taking advantage of aquaculture development, grow-out techniques and recreational use of our oceans. Communities adjacent to potential aquaculture sites must be encouraged to develop them.
• 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.
• All fish species that can be harvested by small boats under 35’ should be harvested by this fleet.
• The sharing of quotas should be on a fair basis, on species which migrate to our shores and species that are adjacent to our shores.
• Policies should be in line with conservation principles in cooperation with fish harvesters and not corporate principles and recommendations.
• Communities are becoming ghost towns from lack of fish quota, yet the foreign fleets are fishing the Continental Shelf, this must be stopped.
• Vessel replacement policies should allow greater flexibility since fishermen are having to go greater distances from land to fish for species such as crab.
• Fish processors must be involved in all aspects of the AFPR consultation, processors should also be included in discussions of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria.
• Conservation cannot produce the desired result of sustainability unless all aspects of fish abundance is addressed, including the negative impact of an increased seal population on the fish resource.
• We need to address the quality of fish going to market and what measures need to be put in place to ensure a high quality of fish for export.
• If we are to have sound conservation policies and programs, federal investment in the science of fisheries is paramount.
• The knowledge of the fishermen and communities cannot be dismissed. Direct participation in decisions of conservation will engender an ownership in the resource.
• The fishery holds opportunity for eco-tourism, export of research and knowledge and the development of technologies ranging from biotechnology to communications. The fishery and activity of the fishery is a generator of significant economic activity.
• A new vessel replacement policy which recognizes a vessel design that allows inshore fishermen to harvest resources out to and beyond the 200 mile limit should be considered, the maximum length restriction as an input control belongs in the past.
• There appears to be a trend in the number of accidents and the movement further offshore to harvest new areas. There also appears to be a persistent trend in the lower value of return for the same products from Newfoundland when compared to the other Eastern Canadian Provinces.
• When the moratorium was declared, and Canadian fishermen not allowed to fish, the foreign fishing members of NAFO continued to fish a variety of species including turbot. These foreign countries are using Newfoundland ports to trans-ship fish (and shrimp) to be secondarily processed in Europe while Canada is prevented from selling processed shrimp to the same market.
• The principle of effort control as a sustainable management tool (which is supported by foreign countries) was discarded because it was a licence to overfish. Canada must take a strong stand before the shrimp resource goes the way of the groundfish.
• Foreign vessels are catching undersized, young and non-reproductive turbot and by-catches of flounder and other groundfish are precluding any possibility of rebuilding these stocks.
• Arrests by Canada for serious infractions have not resulted in one single report of punitive action against the offenders. DFO is urged to publish the weekly surveillance reports that are presently not made available to the public.
• There will never be recovery of the cod, flounder, redfish and other stocks unless and until Canada extends fisheries management control to the Continental Shelf.
• Because of budget cuts, DFO scientists are unable to provide the scientific data necessary to determine the true state of the stocks for which they are responsible. This science funding should be restored.
• Canadian fisheries management will not change until we rid ourselves of those in Ottawa who mismanage the fisheries and return to a fisheries management structure similar to the Federal Fisheries Research Board of earlier days.
• The processing sector is a major employer in the province and a primary stakeholder in all policy decisions impacting the industry. The sector’s role is comparable to that of harvesters, the other primary stakeholder.
• The fleet separation policy is impairing the ability of the processing sector to meet customer requirements through integrated harvesting, processing and marketing operations. Adherence to the traditional notion of owner-operators for vessels over 45-50 feet is not realistic to today’s fishing enterprises.
• The proposed definition of conservation appears laudable but overly ambitious and beyond the capabilities of fisheries science. DFO should share accountability with primary stakeholders in responsible resource management.
• Economic and social viability has to be precisely defined, the only way to do this is in economic terms (i.e. how can the returns to the Canadian fishing industry stakeholders be optimized?). To achieve maximum viability, this model must be predicated on an entrepreneurial, rights-based regime for both harvesters and processors.
• Agreement that the access and allocations process must be fair, transparent and subject to clear and consistent rules and procedural requirements. The access and allocations principles must reflect rights-based regimes, historical dependence, adjacency, etc. which must be prioritized such that they are predictable.
• Agreement that primary stakeholders should have a greater role in fisheries planning and management with ultimate decision making being shared with primary stakeholders, but not transferred.
• Participation by other stakeholders should be strictly limited and in accordance with their level of investment and exposure.
• Limited vertical integration of the harvesting and processing sectors can be in the public interest, but that interest is impaired by a monopolization of fishing licences. Where there is a clear conflict, the public interest should be paramount to the private interest.
• Support for the creation of an independent quasi-judicial licensing board with a mandate to ensure the existence of a dynamic competitive harvesting sector. The board would be empowered to rule whether or not independent fishermen were acting without compulsion and of their own free will and volition in selling their catches.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• Pleased the definition of conservation has changed from the 1982 policy, although rules should not just be ‘enforceable’ – tough penalties are needed for contraventions.
• Accountability should be with the licence holder, if significant deterrents exist, contraventions will be minimized. Penalties such as reduced access to the resource should be considered.
• Support for an independent process or mechanism (a sanctions board) that would hold rule-breakers accountable for their actions and penalize them accordingly.
• In the past, conservation was not much of an issue, but today, with the advances in technology there’s no place for fish to hide. A study should be initiated on the cumulative impact of technology on species – not all fishing technology is bad.
• Support for an ecosystem approach, but as a part of ‘oceans’ which includes other activities such as recreational fishing, aquaculture, etc.
• Conservation is fishing at a sustainable level, be careful not to be too ‘conservative’ and head to ‘preservation’.
• DFO should consider how fishermen themselves can help police others for conservation reasons, they want to become stewards of the resource and know what is happening on the water.
• While we need additional funds for science, and more research, traditional fishermen’s knowledge must also be factored in because right now we do not have the data needed to start a good conservation program. Fishermen have to document discards, high-grading and dumping before we can know the quantity of fish being taken.
• DFO should review its regulations to ensure that they are targetted to conservation objectives, contraventions of fishing regulations have to be seen by the community as unacceptable.
• We cannot have conservation inside the 200-mile limit, and not have it outside. Taking control of the Nose and Tail is a critical step in conservation.
• As a user group, seals seem to have a priority to harvest.
• There has to be a commitment to conservation and a properly managed fishery both inside and outside the 200-mile limit. It is time for Canada to do something other than compromise on our resources. Foreign fleets should be prevented from using smaller mesh size outside the 200-mile limit, from landing undersize turbot and all fish caught in Canadian waters should be processed in Canadian plants.
• Surveillance and monitoring of foreign fleets on the Nose and Tail, the Flemish Cap and monitoring of the St. Pierre fleet should be a priority for DFO.

Economic and Social Viability

• DFO must develop a resource recovery strategy, to encourage recovery and to determine how access and allocation decisions will be made as stocks begin to recover.
• DFO should concentrate on how to sustain resources at the highest possible level to provide the greatest long term economic benefit to Canada – DFO does not have a role in advancing social viability.
• Fish is a public resource, it is about people, not profits – social viability is the distribution of wealth.
• The notion of co-management with resource users is a good one but it should proceed with caution until fishermen are able to assume the responsibility and accountability.
• The fleet separation policy should be strengthened to prohibit processors from obtaining licences – DFO should consider rolling back some previous decisions to take away licences from processors.

Access and Allocations

• There are currently two ways to get access to the fishery – political power (which is elusive and inconsistent) and economic power (using financial resources to buy access). Both result in satisfying a few and outraging everyone else. Any new process must not simply deflect criticism. DFO must address this concern when structuring a third party, independent structure – suggested appointing an ‘office’ rather than a person since people do change jobs – with a clear set of criteria, direction and accountability and unbiased, impartial people as members.
• Some measure of integration of harvesting and processing is necessary. Concerns about corporate concentration are valid but the current structure doesn’t work with respect to safety, economics or viability.
• Vessel replacement policies should be reviewed as safety is becoming an issue as small boats head further from shore to fish. When allocating fish, DFO should take vessel length into account to ensure that fishermen are not compromising safety in order to fish their quota. Given that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is accountable for vessel safety (through the Coast Guard) this should be a priority.
• The Core policy should apply to all vessels, not just those less than 65 feet.

Governance

• A mechanism or mechanisms are needed to resolve conflicts that arise from flawed policies and regulations. This mechanism must be clear, well defined and well publicized.
• Support for the direction proposed but some apprehension that it will work (the fox in charge of the chicken coop?).
• Any structure or mechanism will have to develop and evolve and responsibility should only be transferred as groups develop the capacity to accept the responsibility and accountability. All resource users should be involved, including processors.
• The idea of decisions being made close to the fishery is a good concept and a move in the right direction but ways will have to be found to do this. It will take time.
• Given that the resource is a public property, decision-making concerning its use should be retained by DFO and not devolved to the industry.
• The Federal Government should review and streamline the current aquaculture site and research permit process. Aquaculture has the potential to become a large contributor to the community but with 14 federal departments involved, it takes 6 months just to get a research permit.
• DFO should make a consolidated effort to put its policies into plain English that can be understood by all (emerging species was the example).
• An FRCC-like consultation process should be considered for access and allocations decisions.
• When DFO starts Phase II of the AFPR, it should ensure that it consults more broadly than with just the union leaders, it is the future for the fishermen and they should be involved in whatever consultations are held around Phase II.