DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Sydney, March 14, 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
Sydney, March 14, 2001

• Support for the principles in the discussion document, but less consensus regarding details of implementation. Conversely, "fishermen are skeptical - same old DFO document".
• Does not reflect owner-operator/multi-species fleet.
• Independent harvesters more likely to result in sustainable fishery (than integrated, corporations that use processing jobs as a lever on public policy)
• Re: oil and gas industry - DFO should place harvesting fish resources and harvesters as priority stakeholders.
• Precautionary approach requires a closer look at "multinationals" (offshore/mobile fleet) before "historic" access to recovering groundfish allocated.
• Aquaculture management should be federally regulated and harmonized.
• Small, independent harvesters are key to conservation and sustainability.
• DFO enforcement is very important to conservation.
• Too little recognition of "fishermen" as top priority among stakeholders independence of harvesters and fleet separation vital to sustainability.
• No support for allocation boards.
• Native access licence buy-outs have raised costs of licences and introduced a barrier to entry for non-native fishermen.

Registered Speakers

• Jeff Brownstein – President, Local 6 Maritime Fishermen’s Union
• Gord MacDonald – Area 30 Fishermen’s Association/Area 23 Snow Crab Fishermen’s Association
• Jack Coffin – Stewards of St. Ann’s Harbour Association

What we heard in the Presentations

• There is skepticism and mistrust about the AFPR because it is not a process independent of DFO.
• A belief that this is the same old DFO proposal, reflecting none of the concerns of the broad-based, multi-species, owner-operator fishermen’s organizations.
• The precautionary approach is not being applied by DFO with respect to oil and gas exploration and development. This is very troublesome. Fisheries should have priority in the best use of ocean resources.
• Our lobster fishery is a great example of sustainability which may be due to the fact that it has been controlled by fishermen at the community level more than any other fishery. When the rules come from the fishermen, they are more likely to be respected. Effort controls have proven themselves far more reliant than quota management.
• Gear technology issues have not been addressed in the discussion document.
• There is opposition to entrenching current fleet shares, particularly in groundfish because that means that those who did the most damage to the resource before its collapse in the early 90’s will be given security of tenure.
• The Minister needs to retain his/her authority over fisheries allocations and access, since the resource remains public. There is no support for an allocation board.
• There is support for community-based management and for sharing of decision-making, but more time and resources are needed in order to build capacity. This has to happen so that fishermen can participate as stewards of the resource.
• In co-management, every fisherman has to have a voice and groups have to be accountable. Also, flexibility is central to making co-management work - one size does not fit all.
• DFO has to recognize the larger organizations and/or umbrella groups that can move forward in the direction of constructive co-management, with accountability to all fishermen. It goes without saying that there is a need for capacity building within these organizations.
• The discussion document is filled with references to making a place for recreational fishermen, aquaculturists and eco-tourism operators. Nowhere in the document will you find the word "fisherman". While there may be a place for these other interests, recognition should be given to the importance of the owner-operator fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
• DFO is helping to keep First Nations and fishermen apart when they should be working together as a community.
• The discussion document is an excellent beginning.
• Conservation is paramount and is predicated on enforcement, prosecution and punishment. Otherwise, conservation is not sustainable or viable.
• The rules around shared decision-making need to be adaptive. When the rules become too rigid, people look for loopholes and this creates management problems.
• There is much support for shared stewardship, but DFO will have to reduce its paternalistic attitude.
• DFO needs to respect the individuality of fishermen and not try to force them into one structure.
• Good science is predicated on open, honest communication.
• Without adequate deterrents, there is no conservation.
• A fishery based on the small independent fishermen is preferable because it’s intrinsically conservationist, the quality of the product is better, and the benefits are not concentrated in a select few.
• DFO Fisheries Management has become a slave to legal interpretation. This causes problems because these interpretations are often contrary to the intent of the law. For instance, the rules requiring only small boats are ridiculous because they are contrary to the safety mandate of the government. If a fisherman can afford a bigger boat to stay safe, he should be allowed to use it.
• DFO should keep out of professionalism and building management capability within industry. "This is our job, not yours."
• The problem with big fisheries organizations is that a few make decisions for the many and the few do not always speak for the many.
• On shared stewardship, fishermen need to be prioritized in making decisions. Those making the most investment should have priority when decisions are being made. Openness and transparency are key for fishermen to participate effectively.
• On conservation, the business case for avoiding fines through conservation is just not there because the fines are too low. Sanctions worked and should be allowed.
• DFO is to be commended for the range and completeness of the discussion document.
• There is much concern about aquaculture development. Aquaculture law needs to be uniform and moved to federal jurisdiction. DFO should define its role, not dilute it. Also, there needs to be a clear system of standards and much more clarity about the meaning of "sound scientific advice".

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion:

Conservation

• There was major concern about oil and gas development and DFO’s lack of leadership in this area. DFO should be coordinating the activities of all levels of government because governments are currently tripping over each other. DFO should be doing the environmental review and the proponent should pay for it. DFO will have no credibility on conservation unless it addresses the oil and gas issue. DFO must not sign away its responsibility.
• Conservation is meaningless without meaningful enforcement. If Fishery Officers don’t have enough money for gas for their boats, conservation won’t happen. But fishermen also have to enforce themselves.
• Government scientists continue to be muzzled. The independence of science is key and is not happening.
• Since the last major fisheries review, the policy direction was towards the bigger vertically integrated fleet and that’s been hard on conservation.
• The precautionary approach goes further than saying, "Let’s be careful". It also means taking decisive action.

Economic and Social Viability

• The definition of stakeholder is important, because otherwise co-management agreements are reached behind "closed doors". The process for reaching co-management agreements is a key consideration. DFO cannot exclude people from the table when the topic under consideration will have a major impact on their lives. People can’t be excluded from these types of decisions, particularly when the fishery is a common property resource owned by everyone in Canada. There must be a much different process to implement co-management.
• Implementation of the AFPR will be the key challenge. Co-management has been tried in many places, not always with success.
• Fishermen are stakeholders and important ones, but they are not the only ones. Co-management has to include other stakeholders such as fishermen’s families, secondary industries, and other levels of government.
• For co-management to work, we have to be able to define and implement the precautionary approach.
• In the current decision making process, the traditional licence holders do all the work, but when it comes to the "bread" created by all of their work, everyone wants it. The investments of traditional licence holders are not recognized. Also, the community at all levels needs to be brought into the process for decisions.
• We have been too interested in laying the blame. We need to release people from their mistakes and allow everyone to move on.
• This is a crucial area of the AFPR. The concepts of sustainable use and economic and social viability have to be combined. It’s impossible to talk about economic self- reliance in the fishery because of fluctuations in the resource. Need to strike a balance between sustainable use, economic self-reliance and social objectives.
• Non-licence holders are interested in conservation. There has to be a real distribution of the wealth in communities. Licence holders are not the only interest group.
• There has been destruction of the fishery caused by indiscriminate fishing by multinationals and DFO has to really crack down on these practices. If DFO succumbs to corporate pressures, there won’t be any fishery.

Access and Allocations

• Current sharing arrangements don’t need to codified – they need to be rethought because they are not established on a solid foundation and they don’t make sense. Best use may mean redistribution of shares. DFO will never reach the objectives of conservation, orderly management and shared stewardship with the current fleet shares.
• There is opposition to arm’s length allocation boards. One of the big problems with an arm’s length allocation board would be endless legal costs for those unable to bear such costs.
• The current cost of licences makes it prohibitive for the younger generation to enter the fishery.

Governance

• Licence holders are one group of stakeholders, but they don’t have exclusive control.
• The native buyback program has driven up the prices of fishing licences to the extent that their price is now a significant barrier to new non-native entrants. This is a particular problem for inter-generational transfers. Solutions must be found because otherwise multinationals might be the only ones wealthy enough to buy licences.
• There are governance issues on aquaculture matters, particularly siting. The need for the province to take account of all interests before granting major aquaculture leases was highlighted. As well, there are concerns that ownership monopolies might develop and this is seen as undesirable. A desire was expressed for the federal government to have a greater role in aquaculture.
• Are fisheries stakeholders prepared for co-management? Co-management is not a simple, small thing. It is not defined in the discussion document nor is the word "partnering" used.
• Current co-management agreements are based on single species/single area. There is the resulting outcry about closed processes from those excluded from these agreements. Further, not only is the ecosystem approach undermined by single species co-management, but it is also difficult balance economic and social interests when co-management agreements deal only with singles species.
• In working towards shared responsibility, it’s the licence holders who are most directly affected by decision making. Therefore, if there is going to be shared decision making, licence holders have to be at the table and they need to take responsibility for their own fate. It’s DFO’s job to ensure voices of non-licence holders are heard in order to have balanced governance arrangements.
• However, not everyone has faith in DFO looking after the interests of non-licence holders. When these interests are excluded from co-management arrangements, there is a lack of transparency in the process and a resulting loss of faith in DFO.