DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Antigonish, March 13, 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
Antigonish, March 13, 2001

• Inshore fishermen comprise the majority of the stakeholders and their interests should be first and foremost.
• In any co-management regime, sharing arrangements in times of abundance need to be built in at the front end of the arrangement.
• DFO never listens - hears and then does what "they" want.
• Concern about Marshall – need for greater consultation and input from harvesters.
• Concern about ability of harvester groups to withstand pressure of oil and gas and other large corporate interests.
• "Best use" should not be left just to the Minister; others are involved.
• The fishery is too often used as instrument of social policy; stability in access and allocation helps economic viability.
• Accredited associations should be given preference in the make-up of any management committees.
• Concerns about "forced" professionalization.

Registered Speakers

• Mike Newell - President, Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association
• Stewart Beaton - Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen’s Association

What we heard in the Presentations

• There are concerns that the result of the AFPR will be the eradication of the small boat fishery.
• DFO needs to stay in charge and in fact, become even more involved in the inshore fishery.
• In any co-management regime, primary access to the fishery should go to the inshore. The membership of any co-management boards or committees should reflect this priority. If the Minister overrules the decisions of these groups, then they are not responsible for either the costs or the outcomes.
• Determination of best use is not just up to DFO; others should be involved in the process.
• Accredited groups should be given preference in the fisheries management process.
• Emphasis must be on adjacency.
• There is general agreement with the tenor of the discussion document.
• The definition of conservation is long overdue. It might not be the ultimate definition, but it is a good place to start.
• A large number of past decisions were weighted too heavily in favour of social considerations, probably because fishermen vote and cod don’t.
• Stability and profitability is largely the result of strong security of tenure for licence holders. There are current co-management agreements for terms of five years. There is interest in even longer term agreements because it is easier to make effective business decisions. Long tenure would help to lessen the volatility of resource prices.
• Co-management agreements need to build in access and allocation "rules" at the front end of the arrangement, e.g., sharing mechanisms in times of abundance. These access and allocation rules should be tightly and formally defined.
• Fishermen who have had a taste of co-management and shared decision-making say that other fishermen should not be afraid of it. Parties to current co-management agreements went into the process with uncertainties, but came out very pleased. This is because it gives fishermen more say, holds them more accountable, and lets them be heard. Decisions are made in conjunction with DFO.
• There is a need to add a restoration component into the definition of conservation.
• The definition of community should begin with single species fleets and then overlay geography
• Those who are more reluctant to let DFO devolve decision-making authority say it is because they need DFO’s clout to help them stand up to oil and gas as well as mining interests.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion:

Conservation

• Security of tenure over long term is something that develops a conservation ethic.
• The responsibility for conservation doesn’t start and stop with fishermen. There is no reference in the discussion document to the effects of pollution or oil and gas development. DFO has yet to have any meetings on oil and gas development with fishing groups, yet is signing MOUs with oil and gas companies. There is much concern over the effects of seismic testing on the Scotian Shelf on fish stocks. DFO needs to use and lead the precautionary approach on all uses of the ocean.
• There was considerable support for the definition of conservation and questions as to why it took so long to get this definition. That said, there is a need for the definition of conservation to go further, particularly in light of the fact that oil and gas drilling has already begun in some areas without knowing what the conservation impacts will be.
• It is important for different DFO Regions whose operations overlap to have a consistent interpretation of conservation.
• DFO’s decisions are perceived to be too political, particularly when they are made in Ottawa.
• The discussion document needs to mention the word "fishermen" and recognize fishermen as custodians of the fishery.

Economic and Social Viability

• DFO and other government agencies, particularly Revenue Canada, need to treat fishermen like any other businessmen.
• There is insufficient emphasis on the owner-operator and fleet separation policies in the discussion document. This is important because if the people who own the licences don’t live in the communities contiguous to the fishery, the profits go outside of those communities. This is contrary to the spirit of the bonafide licensing policy.
• If fishing licences had proprietary rights attached to them, then it would be possible to obtain traditional financing with which it would then be possible to operate.
• What does economic viability mean? DFO has to be careful not to set a prohibitive threshold in this regard, otherwise small operators will be effectively shut out. There is a cost to producing food and that has to be taken into account in defining economic viability.
• Longer term agreements help with achieving economic viability.
• The key to new decision making in access and allocations is for participants to plan ahead, keep in mind what you want to do, and create clear rules at the beginning of each new venture.
• There is concern about using existing shares as the basis for new access and allocations rules, particularly in groundfish, because these are the shares that led to the collapse of the species. DFO has to stop defending these quota shares – they were not established on a solid foundation.
• No one wants to be dependent on one species – there has to be a multi-species approach. Fishermen need as much access as possible, including to ITQs that are not being used.
• As well, fishermen need a mechanism to allow the purchase of parts of a licence, e.g., four fishermen could own one $3M license, but each of them have separate operations. Thus, four of them get to be diversified.
• The Marshall licence buyback program has made it very difficult for young people to get into the fishery because of the high cost of licences. Currently, the licences are worth more than the boats. It takes an extraordinary level of backers to go buy a licence right now. Lots of young people want to buy their father’s fishing operation, but their fathers can’t afford to sell it to them. There is sympathy for the desire of Natives to be in the fishery, but there has to be room for others.
• Those who are in the fishery should not have the overriding view that it all belongs to them; others who want in should be considered too.
• Be careful about the policy you make so that it doesn’t come back to haunt people. There was the feeling that only those who are willing to bend the rules can get into the fishery now. Any new processes need to be as transparent as possible so people don’t have to operate under the table.
• The Marshall decision is being settled on the backs of the fishermen. The only ones who have accommodated the natives are the fishermen, but they are the ones who are being criticized.

Governance

• What is troublesome about this theme are the words which imply influence by people outside of the fishery. What has happened with Sable oil and gas development has made fishermen leery of devolution, particularly when supposedly paternalistic DFO is not doing its job right now to keep fishermen informed on developments in the oil and gas industry. Fishermen are only finding out incidentally about oil and gas exploration activities which could negatively impact on stocks.
• Professionalization is doomed to fail. Everyone knows that you have to train deck hands yourself for your own boat. People who are deckhands didn’t want to go to school.
• Licensing should stay in the hands of DFO even though they are not always perfect. At least you can go to one place and have consistency.
• There is very little mention of safety in the discussion document. The licences should be linked to safety and fishermen should be required to meet safety requirements. Smaller vessels are going too far afield with no requirement for safety. A bigger vessel is a safer vessel. Fishermen should be in the safety processes like CMAC.
• There was resistance to DFO’s suggestion that fishermen should be more active in decision-making processes because it was felt that DFO doesn’t let them do enough of that now. Related to that is the concern that the AFPR is going too fast and should be slowed down to allow fishermen to have more input, perhaps at the draft policy stage.
• We should go home and take the advice of the Spice Girls – "tell them what you want, what you really, really want" – write it down the Spice Girl list and send it to Ottawa.
• Just as there is a difference between the Pacific and the Atlantic, there are differences between Gulf, Scotia-Fundy, Newfoundland and Laurentian Regions. Each Region has gone too far in their separate directions to be brought back together in one document. There should be separate documents for each region.
• It’s good that DFO is recognizing that a top-down approach doesn’t work, but the AFPR seems to be a top down approach. It will be very difficult to get the broad based support needed for those very important changes with a top down approach.