DRAFT SYNOPSIS
Public Consultation - Dartmouth, March 12, 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
Dartmouth, March 12, 2001

• Continued involvement and responsibility/accountability of DFO in fisheries management.
• Greater involvement by "coastal communities" in the fisheries management process.
• Ecologically sound management goes beyond conservation - to sustainability.
• Traditional participants should have first consideration in a recovering fishery
• Access and allocation is Minister’s role and responsibility; "listen to us but take the responsibility for the final decisions."

Registered Speakers

• Peter Stoffer, M.P., Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley – Eastern Shore
• David Coon, Conservation Council of New Brunswick
• Don Aldous, South West Nova Scotia Tuna Association
• Howard Epstein, MLA for Halifax-Chebucto
• Earle McCurdy, Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters
• Michael O'Connor, National Sea Products
• Dr. Martin Willison, School of Resource & Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University
• Joanne Weiss, (graduate student) School of Resource & Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University

What we heard in the Presentations:

• It is unfortunate that Aboriginal organizations are boycotting these sessions.
• The AFPR process is a good process, but deep suspicion about it exists. Need to eradicate total lack of trust between those who make a living from the sea and those who have the constitutional responsibility to look after the sea.
• DFO needs to further decentralize to the regions.
• The Canadian Coast Guard is very important to coastal communities
• The Marshall decision created fear and uncertainty. DFO’s policy of negotiating without involving the fishing communities made things worse.
• Oil and gas development must not proceed without input from the fishing community. There is much concern about the impact of oil and gas development on important, ecologically sensitive areas such as George’s Bank, the Gully, and the coral reefs. They must be protected.
• The seal hunt is a difficult issue because on one hand, there is the need to protect and promote salmon habitat and on the other, a cull would destroy markets by creating a backlash.
• With respect to resource allocation, we must be wary of corporate concentration.
• The battle between DFO Science and Resource Management has gone on too long. Partnerships should be developed with universities.
• Aquaculture holds great promise as an industry. One constraint is the apparent battle within DFO between traditional fishery managers and aquaculture managers. This is unfortunate because DFO has to take a leadership role in this field.
• Fisheries management needs to take account of two priorities: healthy ecosystems and human communities. These priorities need to be considered together to find optimum solutions.
• The discussion document ignores many important things. People outside of industry are called "other interests": this is inappropriate.
• Providing a definition of conservation is an important step forward however, conservation alone should not be the top priority; restoration must have equal importance; fishing communities should have the authority to oversee this approach.
• Shared stewardship – it is in the context of community-based management that ethical values can come into play. Industry stewardship won’t promote shared stewardship values.
• The health, viability and self-reliance of coastal communities must take priority. The sustainability of coastal communities is more important than individual enterprises.
• Decisions on how to balance objectives for fisheries management should not be made by government but by communities. Coastal communities must be charged with stewardship of the resource. The greatest contribution to the national economy is strong, vibrant coastal communities.
• Don’t use punitive licence fees. Instead, use royalties based on catch levels.
• The public resource should be protected by guaranteeing access and allocation priority to coastal communities, having respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights. New institutions will be required to implement this plan. The model is a transfer of wealth to a local public domain with clear accountabilities. The advantage of this model is that licences and quota would be held in trust for the community, factoring in the concepts of trust and perpetuity. Management of the fishery should not go to private industry, and because of this imperative, the co-management model in the discussion document is flawed. Fishermen’s groups must play a central role in the coastal community model. There would be three levels of governance nested within each other: a community fisheries board, a regional fisheries board, and an offshore fisheries board. Fishing activity and habitat considerations must be linked to the power of these boards. The discussion document doesn’t do this.
• The AFPR is full of goals common to all fishermen, and tuna fishermen have been trying to accomplish them for years. The discussion document articulates existing policy. There is nothing new or scary in this paper.
• To effect real change, need to persuade DFO’s Conservation & Protection Branch (C&P) to let go. It is hard for people in power to release the reins of power.
• Participants in the tuna fishery are ready to take on the challenges of real co-management.
• Before trying to implement the AFPR, it was suggested that hearings should be held within DFO to create receptive conditions for implementation.
• Both DFO and the industry have to come to terms with the need for change.
• There is broad endorsement for the conservation definition in the discussion document.
• Of all of the uses of oceans resources, the fishery is the most important one because it represents food. Also, the fishery is a renewable industry whereas the oil and gas industry is not.
• Fishing gear types are a crucial consideration in the health of an ecosystem. This is why fishing gear should be subject to an environmental review (s.35 of the Fisheries Act) and if the result is to prohibit certain gear types, e.g., draggers, DFO should compensate those adversely affected.
• Bycatch is an important problem not identified in the discussion document. C&P and the Observer Program are the checks and balances in the need to manage bycatch issues.
• Vibrant coastal communities are highly valued in Atlantic Canada. In addition to efforts by provincial governments, DFO should take a hard look at the issues of corporate concentration, gear types, and distribution of wealth.
• While the growth of the aquaculture industry is noted in the discussion document, what is missing is any critique of this industry
• Bringing First Nations into the commercial fishery is bound to help people who have been marginalized. The process for doing so has to be seen as open, transparent, and fair.
• One of the fundamental issues in the discussion document is the devolution of decision-making authority by DFO. While there is considerable support for this, the discussion document sends mixed signals, e.g., saying that DFO should get out of access and allocation arrangements while at the same time saying that DFO needs to retain control.
• There is disagreement with DFO getting out of access and allocation. It is part of the department’s parliamentary responsibilities. There is agreement for spelling out the basis on which access and allocation decisions are made.
• 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.
• The AFPR final report should include confirmation of the fleet separation policy for <65’ vessels. Fish processing companies and other investors are buying up fishing licences through under-the-table financing arrangements that circumvent this policy.
• Loopholes in the fleet separation policy should be plugged, the first principle and highest priority governing resource management for the Atlantic coast fisheries must be to provide fishing rights to people who fish.
• DFO should enact regulatory or legislative changes to ensure that commercial fishing licences issued for boats <65’ are held by owner-operator headed enterprises. The owner-operator policy has to be the foundation on which any Atlantic fisheries policy is built.
• DFO (or the Federal Government) must come up with a plan to deal with the fact that 35% of the country’s fish harvesters will be reaching retirement age in the next 10-15 years. The cost of entering the fishery will be prohibitive for the next generation of harvesters. The government should be looking at a capital gains exemption for intergenerational transfer of licences and a national fish harvesters’ retirement savings plan.
• DFO should change its timetable and process for the development of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review to include a multi-stakeholder policy roundtable.
• Canada’s fisheries policy should be guided by a clear statement of purpose based on notions of ecological, social and economic stability.
• DFO, in collaboration with the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, should undertake a series of information sessions on professionalization for DFO personnel at both the national and regional levels.
• DFO should make professional certification a condition for participation in the commercial fisheries under its management in all regions where fishermen led professional certification boards are established; such boards should be established in all regions of the country.
• The existing External Advisory Board to the AFPR should be disbanded and replaced by an Atlantic Region fisheries management policy and planning body comprised of representatives of legitimate industry organizations and other direct stakeholders, to direct the development of the new fisheries management policy framework in Phase II of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review process.
• Allocation decisions should 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.
• Overall, the discussion document is a good starting point and probably overdue.
• The goal of promoting sustainable and conservation oriented fisheries and an economically sound industry is achievable if it is shared by all industry stakeholders and supported by clear and comprehensive fisheries management policies.
• There are objections to broadening the stakeholder pool in the fisheries management decision making process beyond those with a traditional presence in the commercial fishery.
• It is paramount to first obtain ‘best use’ objectives within the commercial fishery before considering expanding the number of stakeholders with access to the fishery.
• The new policy must encourage the expanded use of self-regulating or self-adjusting systems (examples are quasi property rights regimes such as ITQs and enterprise allocations).
• NAFO is a poor example of an appropriate and enforceable legislative and regulatory framework for fisheries management. DFO needs to pursue extending Canadian jurisdiction outward or establish a new multilateral organization to replace NAFO.
• Access and allocation decisions are the responsibility of DFO and should be made using proper criteria. Reference to the need to change the existing process by moving responsibility to the fleets enables DFO to avoid its responsibility and accountability for access and allocation decisions, even though the Minister retains final discretion on issuing of licences.
• Newfoundland’s increased capacity to harvest shellfish should not undermine the traditional/historic groundfish harvesters when the shellfish fishery declines and groundfish stocks increase.
• Significant capacity has been removed over the last decade. This should not be viewed by government as an opportunity to introduce new entrants into existing fisheries.
• The access and allocation problems in existing fisheries are directly related to DFO’s tentative approach to the issue.
• Within the constraints of conservation, licence holders and fleets should make their own business decisions and be accountable for the consequences. The concepts of self-reliance and co-management are thus supported subject to allocation and access concerns.
• IFMPs should be left to fisheries stakeholders and another process established to integrate fisheries and ocean access issues such as oil and gas, recreation, eco-tourism, cable laying and mining. The urgency for such a process will vary by region.
• The definition of conservation is adequate, and is supported, but without great enthusiasm.
• The discussion document does not define the term stakeholder and this could cause implementation issues unless remedied. Any such definition should be broadly based and include many fisheries interests.
• With respect to conservation, there are no "spare parts" and no "trash species".
• Overexploitation is a global issue. Increases in fish production are all rooted in aquaculture. Wild fisheries are already maxed out.
• "Adaptive management" is crucial to retaining healthy marine ecosystems. We can’t be locked into old fisheries management practices which are actually counterproductive, e.g., the destruction of deep sea corals during the course of conducting fisheries because we didn’t understand the importance of them as fish habitat.
• The theme of conservation is apparent in the discussion document.
• The definition of ecosystem-based management needs to be elaborated, in particular to include fisheries management strategies, e.g., the impact of gear on species and habitat. Fishing practices should be tapered to the ecosystem in question.
• The discussion document doesn’t say very much about fisheries closures and it should. It should also talk more about MPAs because they are an ecosystem approach. They are living laboratories and should be used as benchmarks.
• Available and accessible information - there should be one document which compiles all marine conservation initiatives.
• The discussion document is silent on how to obtain cooperation of other government agencies on their participation in conservation initiatives.
• The discussion document needs more elaboration on the internal tensions within DFO, specifically those between science and fisheries management, and how they could be better managed.

What we heard in the Round Table Discussion

Conservation

• The conservation section needs to be amplified and expanded.
• A discussion of the precautionary approach must be broader than the technical considerations. It should involve policy questions, in particular those related to habitat issues. Current efforts at using the precautionary approach aren’t doing this, e.g. the FRCC report on gear doesn’t discuss how gear impacts on precautionary approach.
• With respect to developing a conservation ethic, perhaps a community level approach has the potential to succeed because of the potential for moral persuasion within communities around conservation questions. DFO historically has not paid attention to social forces. Maybe there is a need to have social scientists involved with the economists on fisheries policy.
• The entire Atlantic Coast should be considered as an ecosystem. The discussion document does not adequately address the non-fisheries users of that ecosystem and it is not enough to leave it to the Oceans Strategy.
• There are many concerns about aquaculture, especially when the discussion document appears to promote it while at the same time espousing the precautionary approach. Monitoring, licence renewal, and the environmental review process will be crucial tools.

Economic and Social Viability

• This is an area where there is much conventional thinking. The discussion document goes beyond the status quo and that is good, e.g., multi-species licensing, diversified fisheries activity, etc. However, the vision painted for rural Canada on p. 23 of the discussion document has not only not been a focus for DFO, at times, through implicit policy and inaction, the department has gone in the opposite direction. The final policy should increase its emphasis on rural communities and decrease its emphasis on industry impacts.
• In view of the fact that the Nova Scotia government has no regulations on finfish aquaculture (which is controversial), DFO needs to be careful in approving these applications. There is a perception that DFO appears impervious to community concerns in aquaculture applications. This makes the environmental review process even more important.
• The definition of community has to be broad – it is not limited to only geographical communities. For example, fleets in specific fisheries can be considered communities.
• It’s very important that young people have an opportunity to get into fishery.

Access and Allocations

• There is support for devolution of fisheries decision-making to the extent that stakeholders are able to do so. However, can’t see how an independent board can make access and allocation decisions without a great deal of background expertise analogous to that of DFO. Would rather that DFO make these decisions.
• In the end, when addressing policy issues, the question of best use should be determined by the people of Canada, e.g., DFO.
• With respect to stabilizing existing arrangements, this would mean casting in stone arrangements that were made during a period which lacked a policy for best use. Thus, DFO has to be very careful about this approach.
• DFO adds value because it has pre-existing expertise and does not have to reinvent the wheel. What is needed are clear criteria and a certain amount of leadership on access and allocation issues. As long as the Minister has ultimate power, industry will always descend on him/her, regardless of the existence of an access and allocation board.

Governance

• Governance is tied explicitly to cost recovery. The best way for people to have a greater say is for them to actually pay for it. Cost recovery means better decisions. If you pay for something, you get to control it.
• The flip side of this is the need to involve those not fishing but who care into fisheries decision making. The non-fishermen who are interested must be involved in governance.