Meeting Summaries

Fourth Meeting of the External Advisory Board

Meeting Summary - November 27-28, 2002

Opening Remarks

Mr. Sprout welcomed participants to the fourth meeting of the External Advisory Board (EAB) to the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review. He outlined the objective of the meeting which was to hear members comments on the draft policy framework. Distribution of the draft document was limited to EAB members and the Provinces/Territory. It is recognized that most members received the document a week before the meeting and that additional time may be required for substantive comments (later in the meeting it was agreed that members could submit comments until December 31, 2002).

AFPR Vision, Objectives and Principles

Following a presentation on the draft framework, an open discussion was held on the vision, objectives and principles proposed in the framework. The comments are summarized below:

• Most members supported the direction proposed in the framework and appreciated the opportunity to participate in substantive discussion on the draft document, although some members pointed out areas where additional clarification is needed (i.e. a definition of "communities") before moving toward implementation of the framework.
• Members also felt that the document is a reasonable balance of all the input received by the AFPR.
• Concern was expressed about the role of others in the fisheries management process, particularly the number of references to aquaculture and recreational fisheries, with little mention of the historic importance of the commercial fishery. The commercial sector sought some assurance that they have priority access to resources and ‘oceans space’ in the Atlantic to reflect the current reality.
• Representatives of the processing sector expressed their disappointment that the processing sector is not getting adequate recognition in the draft framework. They felt that, given their investment in the fishery, they deserve to be accorded the same treatment in the document as others.
• Some members indicated that the processing and harvesting sectors are inextricably intertwined; that processors have a major part to play and DFO should not be developing fisheries policies or harvesting strategies without the –processors at the table. Members felt there was a difference between those
• who make a living from the fishery and have invested in it (such as processors) and those who merely wish to make comments on a given issue.
• Given previous requests from some members to have the owner-operator and fleet separation policies as principles, disappointment was again expressed that DFO had not acceded to their request (additional discussion of owner-operator and fleet separation policies is included under the section on ‘Self-Reliance’).
• Some members commented that the found the document to be repetitive and, in some instances, argumentative.
• A definition was sought of ‘other resource users’; some members felt that the document did not adequately describe who would be included in that category and how they would fit in the access and allocation process.
• Members expressed concern about the number of references in the document to Ministerial authority. They felt that the Minister's authority was clearly described and expressed in the opening part of the document and that the number of references throughout the document to this authority detracted from the document and brought DFO’s commitment to co-management in question.
• Some members noted that the document proposes a number of changes to the way DFO currently manages the fishery and suggested that DFO will need to articulate what it means by ‘best use’ and what criteria will be used to determine the ‘best use’ of a resource.
• Concern was expressed about the number of references in the document to new entrants to the fishery. There is surplus capacity now and allowing new entrants into the fishery was seen to be at the expense of those already participating.
• Members felt that the document should be sufficiently clear to allow for open and transparent decisions to be made.
  

Conservation and Sustainable Use

Mr. Sprout provided a brief summary of the chapter and the objective of conservation and sustainable use. He outlined the four policy strategies in the chapter: developing and adopting a comprehensive risk-management framework, incorporating the precautionary approach; developing and adopting ecosystem-based management; conducting fisheries within an enforceable regulatory framework; and promoting a conservation ethic and responsible harvesting operations. Members’ comments are summarized below:

• Some members felt that the document is projecting the view that DFO alone is responsible for conservation whereas it is the responsibility of everyone. They also asked that the document give recognition to conservation efforts already made by fishers.
• The precautionary approach must apply equally to all resource users; the example was cited about the impact of aquaculture and concern was expressed that the aquaculture industry is not subject to the precautionary approach when sites are selected.
• The second sentence on page 12 was viewed as somewhat provocative (the reference to precarious economic viability of resource users and fisheries-dependent communities).
• The ‘traffic light’ approach to the precautionary approach is generally supported as long as thresholds are set and known in advance. While the precautionary approach appears to be a good idea, there is a danger of relying too heavily on calculations and models as opposed to an ecosystem approach.
• DFO was asked to review its definition of precautionary approach to be consistent with other definitions used and urged to consider how the precautionary approach would be applied when there is little scientific information on certain stocks.
• Some members requested clarification as to how DFO would measure which fleets "…consistently demonstrate an excellent conservation record…". While some fleets are totally monitored, others have no enforcement which would make it difficult to develop benchmarks to track their conservation records.
• The view was expressed that we need to have stronger deterrents; DFO will need to make conservation offences serious offences, even if it means changing the Fisheries Act.

Self-reliance

Mr. Sprout introduced this chapter and gave a brief overview of the characteristics of self-reliant resource users, as described in the chapter. Two policy strategies are proposed to help achieve this objective: clarifying the role of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in supporting viable coastal communities; and providing resource users with a greater role in shaping social and economic objectives. Members’ comments are summarized below:

• In general, members supported the direction proposed in the chapter and the conceptual work and requested greater clarity around the characteristics of a self-reliant fleet, for example, what is meant by "reasonable levels of income".
• Some members expressed support for the idea that the role of government is to provide a framework under which coastal communities can flourish, with the fishing industry being one part of support to the community.
• The view was expressed that this is the first time DFO has acknowledged that the fishing industry is not responsible for the economic and social ills of Atlantic Canada; DFO should acknowledge that, given the nature of the resource, there will be good years and bad years.
• Some members pointed out that many fishermen are already self-reliant and have survived downturns in the fishery.

The owner-operator and fleet separation policies were discussed in some detail. Mr. Sprout reminded members that the Commercial Fisheries Licensing Policy for Eastern Canada, 1996 remains in place and that the draft policy framework states that flexibility would only be considered within constraints.

Mr. Sprout indicated he did not expect to resolve these issues at the meeting, but appreciated the opportunity to hear members’ views. He noted that representatives of inshore fishermen had been clear on their position that they want these policies maintained, and strengthened. However, there are other fleets that want some flexibility, and the processing sector that would like to eliminate the fleet separation policy. The Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters tabled a document entitled "Shaping the evolution of the Owner-operator and Fleet Separation policies in the Commercial Fisheries" which proposed alternate wording for this section of the draft policy framework. Members’ comments included:

• There is a difference between a harvester designating an operator, or partnering between heads of enterprises through temporary arrangements and a situation where the control of the licence is in the hands of an "absentee landlord".
• Most members agreed with the view that it is beneficial use of the licence that is important and should be in the hands of someone associated with the industry.
• Some members said that many fleets want to maintain the owner-operator policy but also want some flexibility to make decisions about their own economic viability; in reality, many fleets have found ways around the policy. There should be some way to give fleets what they want, while not contradicting the objectives of the policy.
• Some members felt that the document’s reference to the link between the two policies and conservation and self-reliance was not correct.
• Some members acknowledged that this chapter is a particularly difficult one to write; each person in the room would have written it differently. DFO should recognize that the two perspectives on the policies will not change.
• The fleet separation and owner-operator policies are inextricably interwoven; if you eliminate fleet separation, you essentially eliminate owner-operator.
• Representatives from the processing sector find the fleet separation policy discriminatory in that harvesters are allowed to own processing plants, while processors cannot hold a commercial licence.
• In the past, DFO has allowed exceptions to the policies; if changes to the fleet separation policy are contemplated, DFO should not be allowed to step in and disrupt existing arrangements.
• Some members indicated that, with regard to financial arrangements between a harvester and the authority loaning money to finance the enterprise, if these arrangements are such that they subvert the intent of the policy, DFO should remove the loopholes in the policy that allow this to happen.
• One member suggested that the sign of a good policy is one that annoys everyone; harvesters always have the option of saying "no" to a source of funds.
• It was suggested that there is a difference between the processing plants operated by fish harvesters (who have an investment and interest in the fishery) and those operated by corporate interests (whose primary motive is profit).
• Some members advanced the view that the fleet separation policy should not be a ‘black and white’ issue (i.e. strengthen it or abandon it); harvesters should be entitled to develop the model that is most appropriate for their fishery.

Mr. Sprout briefly reviewed the next steps with regard to the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. The AFPR team will provide advice to the Minister, based on comments received from the Provinces/Territory and the External Advisory Board, after which the Minister will make the decision on how to handle the two policies in the policy framework.

Stable and Transparent Access and Allocation Approach

Mr. Sprout introduced this chapter and briefly reviewed the three policy strategies proposed in the document: clarifying the process and criteria for determining best use and acknowledging legitimate uses; establishing decision-making guidelines for commercial access and allocation; and stabilizing sharing arrangements in established commercial fisheries. Mr. Sprout noted that the Minister had responded to the Report of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria and that the response, "A New Access Framework" is reflected in the chapter.

Overall, members expressed concern about the references to the role of others in this chapter, and about what was meant by "best use". They felt that, as mentioned in the discussion on principles, the commercial sector should have priority access to resources, once conservation and Aboriginal and treaty rights have been satisfied. Members supported a clear, transparent access and allocation approach, with clear rules to allow fair decisions to be made. They were pleased to see that DFO is not pursuing an Atlantic-wide access and allocation board but again expressed concern about the number of references to Ministerial authority in this chapter.  Members’ comments included:

• The policy framework should provide direction that leads to a stable and transparent access and allocation process, with decisions taken that do not radically depart from the process.
• Some members suggested that the document does not indicate the dominance of the commercial sector as the major user of the resource; they felt it would be hard to evaluate "the relative contribution to Canadian society".
• Some members expressed concern that the document does not recognize existing policy which states that fleets implementing capacity reduction programs will not be penalised when fisheries are re-opened.
• Members representing the over 65’ fleets expressed concern about references to Core fishers receiving access to fisheries of increasing abundance or value when there are no references to the offshore fleets.
• A request for additional clarity on what is meant by "best use"; members found it was hard to take the concept and translate it into practice.
• Members also expressed concern about the number of references to ‘other users’ in this chapter and the number of times the words ‘Ministerial authority’ appear.
• The document gives the impression that DFO would consider re-opening long-term agreements; this should not be done unless both parties agree; as written, the document tends toward de-stabilizing the access and allocation process.
• Some members commented that existing sharing arrangements are not always to everyone’s satisfaction; DFO should be careful how, and under what circumstances these sharing arrangements would be reviewed.
• In the past, conflict resolution has not always led to a satisfactory solution; the suggestion was advanced that DFO should consider a ‘code of conduct’ for members of a conflict resolution panel.
• Some members commented that they were pleased to see that DFO is not proposing an access and allocation board.
• DFO was cautioned that it is important to distinguish between new entrants to a fishery as opposed to new entrants to fish a specific species and that any decision to allow additional entrants should not be at the expense of the economic viability of existing participants.
• The view was also advanced that establishing shares when re-opening a closed fishery can be a very complex task, particularly if it re-opens at a fraction of its historical level. A number of elements should be taken into consideration including fishing history, under what circumstances did a fisher leave the fishery, what other fishing opportunities have been provided, etc.
• Some members commented that exit thresholds are important, these need to be established in advance, clearly defined and communicated to all.
• While most participants agreed with the idea of stabilizing sharing arrangements, Nunavut raised concerns with this as these shares were established before the Territory was created. They noted that the Independent Panel on Access Criteria recognized this and, since the Minister has accepted the recommendation on Nunavut, they look forward to this being implemented by DFO.
• Some members from the non-commercial sector indicated they did not see a time when the recreational fishery would overtake the commercial as the prime users of the resource but that they were pleased to see references to the recreational sector as legitimate users of the resource. They suggested that DFO should consider the impact that some fisheries have on others when looking at best use, e.g. gillnets in rivers.
  

Shared Stewardship

Mr. Sprout introduced this chapter and briefly outlined the four policy strategies proposed in the document: adopting a more inclusive approach to policy planning; enabling resource users to assume more of a role in operational decisions; facilitating Aboriginal participation in policy planning and decision making; and building capacity to enable resource users to take on new responsibilities. He indicated that at the AFPR public consultations, and in many written submissions, people who are not direct resource users wanted a way of participating in the fisheries management process as they currently feel excluded.

Overall, members’ comments focussed on the structure of the proposed policy forums, with members seeking clarity as to what kind of advice these forums could provide and how this would feed into the fisheries management decision-making process. Members were unclear how often these forums would be held and whether or not they would be regional, cross-regional or Atlantic-wide. Members also liked the reference to professionalization and the proposal to develop criteria to define legitimate organizations.

Members’ comments included:

• DFO should carefully consider weighting the comments heard at policy forums, taking into account the different orders of interest of participants.
• Some members expressed concern about the reference in the document that DFO would "reflect the advice provided" at the policy forums; the suggestion advanced was that DFO should consider the advice given.
• Members suggested that DFO should carefully consider the type of issue that would be brought forward at the proposed policy forums; members did not consider the forums appropriate for the discussion of operational fisheries management issues.
• Members urged DFO not to tamper with existing advisory processes that work in order to establish policy forums.
• The suggestion was advanced that one way of ensuring effective participation at a policy forum would be to have written presentations from those who wish to speak (similar to the AFPR public consultation sessions).
• DFO was urged to use caution in the design of the policy forums for roll out in Phase II of the AFPR, although some members supported the idea of a two-tier advisory process.
• With regard to shared stewardship, some fleets are ready and willing now to share responsibility but it is hard to see how fleets would be given greater responsibility when the ultimate authority rests with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
• It was suggested that DFO should develop guidelines and criteria detailing DFO’s role in shared stewardship and co-management so that industry will have a greater certainty about what is expected.
• In addition to recognizing legitimate organizations, there will be a need for a culture change in DFO before true co-management can be implemented.
• Some members commented that the description of legitimate organizations in the document is good; DFO was cautioned to remember that some organizations may only have an extremely small membership.
• One member suggested that fishermen should be encouraged to become part of an organization that could represent their interests and speak for many.

Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Mr. Sprout informed participants that the version of the draft policy framework discussed at this meeting will be discussed at the Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers’ meeting on December 2. It is likely that there will be a meeting of provincial/territorial officials in January, after which the advice received will be incorporated into the framework before being forwarded to the Minister.

EAB members were invited to submit additional comments on the draft document by December 31, 2002.

Mr. Sprout indicated that, following release of the policy framework, work will commence on Phase II and asked if members had any advice on the role of the External Advisory Board following adoption of the framework. Most members indicated that the Board has a role to play and provides good checks and balances for DFO; they also indicated that the Board should continue to meet on an ad hoc basis. It was also suggested that the Minister be invited to attend the next Board meeting for an informal meeting on priorities for Phase II of the AFPR.

The next meeting of the EAB will be at the call of the chair.

Third Meeting of the External Advisory Board

Meeting Summary - January 23, 2002

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Mr. Paul Sprout welcomed participants to the third meeting of the External Advisory Board. The purpose of the meeting was to report on activities since the last meeting of the Board, to provide an opportunity for participants to understand the range of issues raised during the public consultation process, to seek members’ advice on key issues raised during the public sessions, and to seek members’ advice and guidance on the format and outline of the draft policy framework.

Updates

Mr. Sprout noted the appointment of a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and acknowledged the importance of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review to the department. The Review has been supported by other key departments and agencies and responds to concerns raised by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General and many industry associations for the need for coherent and consistent policy direction. He reminded participants that over the past two years the AFPR has generated considerable expectations both in the fishing industry and within other parts of government.

Mr. Sprout detailed the milestones reached by the AFPR since the last meeting of the External Advisory Board:

• Release of the discussion document (February, 2001)
• Public consultations and bilateral meetings (March - April, 2001)
• Public input and written submissions received (May - June, 2001)
• Analysis of submissions (May, 2001 – present)
• Release of What We Heard (summary of the public sessions) (September 2001),
• House and Senate hearings (October - November, 2001),
• Policy Summary document, which we committed to prepare, is nearly complete. We expect to post this on the web site next month.
• Beginning to draft policy framework.
  

Mr. Sprout briefly reviewed the IPAC milestones:

• Minister Dhaliwal proposes panel (August, 2000) at ACFAM meeting to deal with issues arising from Northern Shrimp decision
• Input sought from Provinces and EAB on mandate and membership (January – March, 2001)
• Agreement on mandate (March 2001) at Charlottetown ACFAM meeting,
• Panel announced - mandate and membership (June 2001),
• Panel launched (July - August, 2001),
• Consultations (September - November, 2001).
• It is expected the panel will present their report to the Minister in the next month or so.

Mr. Sprout informed attendees that EAB members would likely have an opportunity to comment on the IPAC report after it has been released to the Minister.

[Following the meeting, the Minister Thibault indicated that he will actively seek comments from the EAB on the IPAC report, once it has been released publicly].

(c) AFPR – Further Consultations and Discussions

Although public consultations are complete, Mr. Sprout indicated that there are ongoing discussions with Provinces and the External Advisory Board and input is being sought from Maritime First Nations. Discussions with the Provinces and Nunavut will be held through existing mechanisms such as the ACFAM and working groups at the officials’ level. It is anticipated that there will be at least one more meeting of the EAB to review a draft of the policy framework later in the spring (discussion on this was postponed until later in the day).

Additionally, the Department would be prepared to speak to groups and associations about the policy review, the results of public consultations and the progress to date.

Review of Input Received from Public Consultations

Following a presentation by Mr. Sprout on an overview of public input to the AFPR process, comments included:

• There is a need for a ‘weighting’ of the views expressed at the public sessions. It is difficult to tell if comments were made by those in the fishing industry, or by individuals peripherally involved in the fishery.
• While each person knows their own organization’s views, it is hard to discern from the summary the views expressed by those speaking on behalf of organizations, and those views expressed by individuals
• Those not involved directly in the fishery could have a somewhat naïve view or approach from those who make their livelihood from the fishery and know it intimately.
• It would also be useful to have more information on DFO’s perception of the sessions, particularly with regard to industry views on the role of the Minister in access and allocation decision-making.
• There is a need to be clear when we are talking about First Nations - the discussion document refers to ‘Aboriginal people’.
• A doubt that there was ‘unanimous’ support for transparency and a rules-based system of allocations;
• While it is interesting that the need for additional science, incorporation of fishermen’s knowledge into the stock assessment process and more enforcement were identified in public consultations, recent appointments to the FRCC are disappointing and leave a large area of the Atlantic without representation from fishermen on the Council.
• The AFPR public consultation process was open to all, and in some meetings small, special interest groups appears to be given a lot of time to express their views.

Key Issues Arising from Consultations

Mr. Sprout introduced this item for discussion by indicating that four main issues arose during the public consultation process: owner-operator and fleet separation policies, access and allocation, the role of communities and others in fisheries management, and capacity for decision-making. He acknowledged that achieving consensus on these issues would be difficult. He asked members to focus discussion on the underlying objectives rather than revisiting the positions already expressed during public consultations.

Owner-operator and Fleet Separation Policies

Mr. Sprout briefly reviewed the contents of the issue note on owner-operator and fleet separation and reminded attendees that the AFPR discussion document states that the starting point for discussion is that the Commercial Fisheries Licensing Policy for Eastern Canada, 1996, remains in place. Comments from attendees included:

• Reference to the ‘grandfather’ clause in Scotia-Fundy needs some explanation as the exemptions were supposed to apply to family operations (when the owner of the licence was unable to fish for a short period, the son/daughter was permitted to fish the licence). It is believed that the clause has been used for other purposes since its introduction, which means it is not being applied as originally intended.
• The spirit behind the owner-operator and fleet separation policies was the preservation of the independence of the inshore fleet. Inter-generational transfers are handled differently from region to region. While we have to be careful of loopholes in the policies, we must always remember the intent of the policy.
• The foundation of the two policies is ownership and independence; both policies make sure that the licences are held by individuals living in the community, rather than company-owned in the cities.
• The owner-operator policy is important to rural Canada, it is founded on the principle of preserving the rural economy and is a large part of our social heritage; other natural resource sector principles have been eroded – the only one left is the fishery. The owner-operator policy is being systematically eroded as fish prices and licence values rise. We must recognize that the fishery is the last area in which people in rural communities can provide a living for themselves.
• The processing sector has argued for removal of both policies, or at least, to have significant amendments made. This sector is economically driven and has to be competitive in the world market; all foreign buyers care about is the price and quality of fish, not the social objective underpinning behind it.
• Processors want an assured supply of fish; one way to do this is to have greater security that the raw material is available to them when they want it. There is also a need to match harvesting capacity with resource availability.
• The idea that a licence holder should be aboard his/her boat every minute of every day is not applied consistently across the Atlantic. One problem is with the multi-species licence holders; when the fishing seasons overlap, strict enforcement of the owner-operator policy works to the detriment of the fisherman. It is expensive to buy into the fishery; having spent large sums of money on licences, it is only natural that you would want to participate in each fishery for which you have a licence.
• In the past, for a number of good reasons, both policies were adopted but both policies have now evolved. Whatever is done should not destroy the family-owned businesses, including fish processing companies, that are community-based, in many cases they are the main employers in the community. There is a need for flexibility in both policies.
• DFO will need to define what is meant by a ‘corporation’.
• If the owner-operator policy disappears, there is bound to be an imbalance between harvesters and processors. There is a demographic problem in the fishery that the federal government will have to address.
• Owners who operate their own vessel have the most incentive to be efficient. It has to be remembered that some owner-operators are not good fishermen, and some processors are not good processors.
• With respect to providing flexibility, this is similar to fleet sectors opting for IQs. If a group of like-minded fishermen, for example, in the 45-65’ fleet decided they would like to abandon the owner-operator policy, they should be allowed to make that decision.
• Owner-operator has to be seen as a policy principle; there will be mechanisms to deal with exceptions, such as family operations. Allowing flexibility can have an impact on the entire policy or region and will erode the current system.

Mr. Sprout then asked attendees to consider the following questions: What role does licence concentration play in support of the policy? Is it a key consideration? What are the implications, if any, of multi-species licensing? Does flexibility in the policy have an effect, and if so, is this negative or positive? Is the owner-operator policy of equal significance as the fleet separation policy? Should be two policies always being used in combination?

Comments from attendees included:

• Licence concentration is happening now. The existence of the owner-operator policy in Nova Scotia is not discouraging concentration of licences. Fishermen are accumulating licences; people are enterprising and want security but this is costing everyone a lot of money. If the goal is to keep one licence for one operator, the policy is not working.
• There are significant regional differences in the application of the policy; DFO should look at the differences in regions, and the needs of the fishermen and allow flexibility in the policy to accommodate these differences.
• It must be remembered that the two policies are linked, but distinctly different - do not forget that fleet separation is a one-way prohibition.
• The issues are intertwined and cannot be separated. In the old days, fishermen fished and processors processed. DFO will have to take a look at the long term implications of changing the policies. There are fishermen who will sell to processors but if they thought about their future, particularly if their grandchildren wish to fish, they may re-consider.
• It is unclear why this is government policy. Fishermen have many personal choices to make, and this should be one of them. While existing government policy says that a fisherman must personally fish his/her licence, this is being circumvented now. It is understandable if fishermen make the choice to keep or discard the policies; this should not be government’s role. Government should concentrate on setting the conditions that allow fish harvesters to make the choice for themselves.
• We need both policies. In terms of multi-species licensing, there are a number of ‘hot button’ issues – tread carefully – maybe government should consider licence packaging.
• We need a commitment to Canadian ownership.
• The owner-operator policy is a deeply held belief in communities and government would be ill-advised to abandon the policy. In terms of licence concentration – it is hard to be a corporation if you have to personally fish your licence.
• There are two different visions – the social and the economic models. The vision of the inshore fleet is normally the social model, with the retention of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies (share the wealth) while the larger vessel fleets tend more toward the economic model.
• There was a suggestion for the establishment of a working group of EAB members to analyse the policies and to determine if there are common areas that can be agreed upon. While everyone has their own positions, it is not terribly practical to just continue stating them. We need to look at what the policies were originally intended to do, how they have evolved and where we can work together. Others noted that these are fundamental issues and perhaps this forum is not the right one to solve it – it is just too big and too diverse. Any recommendations on these topics have important consequences for everyone.
• Everyone in the industry wants to make a living and we will have to find a balance between the number of people involved in the industry and their revenue but not to the detriment of individuals.
• The concept of multi-species licensing was important for both biological and economic reasons.
• There are solutions to the owner-operator/fleet separation issues; we must be able to find something that would work for both the harvesters and processors. The main problem is with the loopholes in the policies that allow ‘under the table’ deals to happen.

Access and Allocations and the Role of Communities and other Stakeholders in Fisheries Management

Mr. Sprout indicated that we could discuss both issues in tandem and briefly reviewed the contents of the issue notes on these two topics. With regard to input on access and allocations, he suggested that attendees focus their comments on how stability and predictability in the allocation process might be better achieved. With regard to input on the role of communities and others in fisheries management decision making, he asked attendees to consider what objectives would be served by involving communities and other groups in the fisheries management process, and at what level. Comments included:

Access and Allocation:

• It is hard to see how we could have a productive discussion on access and allocations. A number of people will oppose fixing shares because they want their shares changed.
• The question is not one of stability and predictability in the allocations process but the amount (share) a fleet or individual receives. We cannot expect everyone to agree on what is fair, although for some moratoria stocks, we have incidents where industry has negotiated agreements acceptable to all. We cannot be productive if we do not agree with our share.
• We need to find a process to deal with allocations issues, rather than simply re-state our positions on all the topics.
• It seems to be common sense to fix current sharing arrangements once they have been fully examined and adjustments made for the anomalies. We will continue to need the advisory process.
• While an arm’s length, independent allocation board is not supported, an ad hoc, independent panel, with accountability back to the parties is seen as workable.
• The basic idea of an ad hoc panel is ‘the Canadian way’. Panel membership should be negotiated with the parties intimately involved in the dispute and should be an ad hoc panel struck to deal with a particular dispute, and then disbanded.
• It should be possible to fix shares in about 95% of the fisheries and deal with the anomalies separately. The fishing industry needs to know its level of allocation over a reasonable business cycle in order to make decisions. Participants need to have the assurance that their share will not be taken away; when the resource base increases, the increase should be apportioned to existing players, if the resource base declines, existing players will have their share reduced.
• It is important that we have clear rules, a transparent process and a redress mechanism that are known to all and which ensures that the government abides by the rules.
• Stability and predictability are fundamental; if we do not have that, conservation could suffer from the ‘if I conserve it and then lose it, I might as well kill it today’ mentality.
• Allocations are relatively stable; no one is asking to re-open all decisions, but it must be remembered that the owner-operator policy contributes to a sustainable fishery.
• There are some obvious inequities, i.e. lobster which has increased substantially in value. We should think about a threshold approach to allocations.
• When the resource base is increasing, politicians are always eager to allocate fish without looking at the existing fleet. If you could remove the politics, the system would work much better.
  

Role of Communities and other Stakeholders in Fisheries Management

• Don’t disagree in principle with the inclusion of communities and other stakeholders in the management of the fisheries resource but we also need to take a look at the existing process. DFO has open public meetings and has had, of necessity, to limit the number of chairs at the table.
• The question is – at what table should these others are represented. While there is probably not a problem in creating an opportunity for others to participate in the process, they should not be at the table when commercial interests are being discussed.
• At a certain level, the process will have to take into account people who live and work around the fishery, but we will have to keep in mind that, to some extent, those who built the fishery and fish it have a sense of ownership of it.
• Role of the communities is much more complicated; communities do not figure prominently in other industries.
• People who are not touched directly by the fishery do not know the implications of certain recommendations and might provide advice with the best intentions but impractical to implement. Those outside the fishery do not know the history of allocations, are unlikely to understand the fisheries management process works and should not be invited to the same table as the commercial interests.
• If DFO is considering the role of communities and other stakeholders in fisheries management, it must not sacrifice existing processes that work and are accepted.

Capacity Building for Participatory Decision-Making

Mr. Sprout briefly reviewed the contents of the issue note on capacity building for participatory decision-making. He suggested that attendees may wish to focus their comments on what capacity needs to be built to allow for more effective involvement in decision-making, the roles of the various parties, and the necessary conditions that organizations should meet to participate in the decision-making process. Comments included:

• There will be a major financial impact on associations as they are asked to assume more responsibility. While it is acceptable to transfer responsibility, organizations will require additional financial resources.
• Over the years, DFO has appeared to pay lip service to fishermen’s organizations; this has been partly because of the government’s micro-managing attitude. The Code of Conduct is another example; DFO invited all organizations to ratify the Code; DFO should be working with the major organizations.
• DFO needs to work with others to create the conditions that allow organizations to be independent. These conditions would include legislation.
• We need to have a clear and consistent message from DFO; right now, politics is distorting decision-making. The direction in which the department is moving has to be clarified and clear and must be applied fairly across all fleets – if one pays, we all pay.
• There are many organizations that are willing and able to accept more responsibility; DFO should focus its attentions on the exceptions – those that need capacity building. The Department should set a goal and direction for the next 20 years, and see which organizations need help to get there.
• DFO also needs to take a look at the organizations with which it is currently dealing and must be flexible in its dealings with organizations. The Department will have to accept that not all organizations are equal and cannot be approached in the same way; customized approaches will have to be developed.
• There are various steps that have to be gone through before an organization can become recognized. A number of factors are taken into account, including: are elections held, are there annual meetings, number of staff employed, do they have offices, a board of directors, a constitution and a voting process. These are some criteria that could be applied for DFO’s relations with organizations – don’t accept everyone who comes along purporting to represent fishermen.
• DFO should consider developing a policy on its relationship with organizations.
• Professionalization is the solution to the capacity building problem.
• Professionalization has merit if the major fishermen’s organizations are the main partners, but if it is couched as apprenticeship training, the organizations don’t want it.
• Not as skeptical about co-management, we have been doing this for a while and will continue to work with DFO (‘better the devil you know’).
• Every region is different, and every region has examples of things that have worked. The Government of Canada as a whole might have to make a larger commitment to capacity building.
• Organizations are already over-burdened; we spend a lot of time and money travelling to meetings called by DFO on short notice.
• We have all been ‘burned’ by DFO in the past. DFO needs to have a checklist of what it means to be a legitimate organization.
• There is no question that some people are paying more than others; it seems that DFO sets a target and then looks at the fleets to see how the target can be met and who can pay.
• While none of us like to attend meetings, it is hard to give input to such weighty issues in one day. People tend to leave the meeting part way through. For meetings such as this, DFO should consider holding them over two days to allow time for a good discussion of the issues. DFO has to allow attendees time to think about these substantive issues.
• Maybe we need to take a step back and have a look at the subject matter for discussion which will determine who should be at the table. DFO needs a system whereby individuals or smaller groups can provide input into a larger body. DFO’s role should be as facilitator of this bottom-up process.
• DFO should identify options for recognizing organizations and return to the EAB with scenarios for discussion at the next meeting.

Draft Outline of Policy Framework

Mr. Sprout briefly reviewed the handout on the draft outline of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Framework and invited comments. In response to a question on whether the new Minister has been fully briefed on the AFPR, Mr. Sprout confirmed that he has had a briefing at which he indicated that we should continue with this and other policy initiatives.

Members expressed their appreciation for the evolution of the AFPR process – from discussion document to draft policy framework, including the desire of DFO to work with industry. They indicated that the ‘products’ of the AFPR, including the "What We Heard" document reflect the desire of the department to listen to what people are saying. In addition, some participants noted that the External Advisory Board has proven an effective forum for discussion of substantive issues, such as the key issues identified at public consultations, and participants asked that additional time be allotted for the next meeting of the Board (a 2-day meeting was proposed).

Next Steps

There is a need for at least one more meeting of the External Advisory Board, which will be scheduled for two days to allow for substantive discussion. The main topic at the next meeting will be a draft of the policy framework which will be circulated to members at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. The document will not be final and EAB members will have the opportunity to input. This was well received by attendees.

Depending on the timing of the next meeting, the Report of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria could also be a topic for discussion.

The members of the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review would like to express their sympathy to the family of Mike Belliveau. Mike was a valued member of the EAB and a major contributor to this meeting; we will miss him.

Second Meeting of the External Advisory Board

Meeting Summary - June 12-13, 2000

Opening Remarks

Mr. Paul Sprout welcomed participants to the second meeting of the External Advisory Board and briefly reviewed the role of the Board. The purpose of the meeting was to hear Board members’ comments on the draft discussion document which was circulated before the meeting.

Overview of the Discussion Document

Following a brief presentation on the draft discussion document, general comments on the document included:

• That the French version of the document needs a careful edit to use terminology consistent with the English version and familiar to the audience.
• A question of how this draft document links to the Oceans Management Strategy being developed under the Canada Oceans Act.
• That the Canada Oceans Act does not go far enough, particularly in terms of the requirement for the oil and gas industry to consult on their activities with other sectors, such as the fishing industry (the example given was cable laying).
• That, with the establishment of an Advisory Council on Oceans, there is understandably some confusion of where this policy review fits into DFO’s overall activities.
• That the document excludes the processing sector. While it is understood that the focus of the document is on the harvesting sector, the processing sector is a legitimate part of the fishing industry and their interests should be reflected in the document. It is also recognized that the processing sector comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
• That those who are most affected by the new approach proposed in the document should be fully consulted. It is important that fishermen not only understand, but also buy into the new direction that DFO is proposing.
• That the word ‘fisherman’ should appear in the document, presently the document concentrates on the word ‘licence holder’.
• That the document has a ‘flavour’ that DFO is placing a priority on new access (to recreational fisheries, aquaculture and tourism).
• That some of the changes DFO proposes to make will need legislative change.
• That the term ‘Aboriginal’ should be more clearly defined.
• That the document is well written and is a good piece of work.

Presentation by John Paul

John Paul, on behalf of the Atlantic Policy Congress (APC), gave a short presentation on the implications of the Marshall decision. Following the presentation, he indicated that he would be willing to make presentations to fishermen’s organizations, when requested. The presentation, and other information on the APC, can be accessed through www.apcfnc.ca.

Discussion of the Principles

I. Conservation

What we heard:

• That the definition is missing the notion of sustainable use of the resource ‘for present and future generations’.
• That no one takes issue with the precautionary approach; the issue is in the detail and how it is applied; it must be a practice, not just a risk analysis tool. The reality is that science and modelling is problematic in its ability to assess a stock which in turn makes it hard for managers to make decisions.
• That in the section on ecosystem-based management, we should include reference to high and low bio-diversity areas.
• The reference to selective fishing practices implies that it covers everything, but the use of gear for conservation purposes does not appear in the document. A section on the different types of fishing gear should be included.
• The way fishermen are treated in the document comes across as paternalistic. Fishermen are portrayed as ‘predators of the resource’ when in reality they have a pre-occupation with conservation and are asking for more science to be conducted on the stocks. The tone of this section should be reviewed.
• That the ecosystem approach is the correct way to go but DFO must retain responsibility and authority to gather scientific data.
• A comment that unless those affected are a part of the process, a conservation ethic will be hard to promote.
• Section 4.3.3.3 (a conservation ethic and responsible harvesting operations) leaves the reader to believe that this is not the case now; in many fisheries, fishermen are paying to have better scientific data. The document should acknowledge and give credit to fishermen for what is already being done in many fisheries.
• The word conservation is loosely used; it has to be practised, not just talked about. A conservation ethic will only come if there is a desire for it. Given that there is not enough fish for everyone with a licence, all interests in the fishery should work together to propose and implement changes.
• When referring to biodiversity, we should make it clear that there is both genetic and biological diversity.
• That the number one conservation problem in the Atlantic is the re-building of the cod stocks, which is not addressed in the document.
• That we should consider using the FAO definition of conservation.
• That a conservation ethic will only come out of self-interest and security of access to the resource; harvesters should not be expected to pay the price and not reap the benefits.
• There are particular problems and restrictions in the North, the most important being the cost (and where the resources might come from).
• We need to define what is meant by an ‘acceptable risk’; acceptable for whom. It is recognized that this section of the document is inextricably linked to the other three sections of the document.
• The idea of balancing harvesting capacity with the resources available is unlikely; the resources are not there to sustain all the fishing communities. Conservation will come into play when fishermen are able to make a living from the available resources.
• The definition of ‘conservation’ seems to focus more on the fisherman than on the fish.
• A question as to why we used the term ‘protection of habitat’.
  

II. Economic and Social Viability

What we heard:

• Good corporate citizens should support their community but their economic viability has to come first.
• While it is true that DFO does not have the tools or legislative mandate to resolve the economic and social problems in Atlantic Canada, it has not stopped the department from distributing the benefits (in the form of licences).
• DFO should state its social objectives more clearly in the document.
• The interests of the processing sector have to be reflected in this section of the document; at the moment they appear to be included under ‘other interests’.
• Economic and social viability of whom? What is a licence? Is it authority to catch fish or to do what you want with a quota?
• The owner-operator policy must be enshrined in the document.
• A definition of ‘communities’ is required.
• DFO should clearly state what the implications are for both provincial and municipal/local governments.
• Section 4.4.3.1 refers to the need to avoid concentrating licences in ‘too few hands’ – DFO should indicate what it means by this statement (define how many are ‘too few’).
• That section 4.4.3.1 should either be more specific, or less. The responsibility of licence holders should be included, and a caveat should indicate that the criteria listed are not comprehensive, rather they serve as an example of criteria that could be used to constrain decision-making.
• The document should contain a section on harvesting capacity; the document seems to say that the capacity problem is under control. While this is true in some fisheries, it is not the case in all fisheries.
• Reference to the Kirby Report in Section 4.4.1 should be expanded to include other aspects of Kirby’s recommendations.
• DFO cannot over-stress the need to have the resource harvested by Canadians with Canadian vessels.
• That something should be said about Aboriginal involvement – but the term ‘Aboriginal’ must be better defined.
• The principles should indicate what social responsibilities licence holders are going to have, and what is the trade-off between economic viability and social responsibility.
• That, regardless of what the document says, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ‘owns’ the fish and is therefore responsible for them. This responsibility derives from the Constitution Act and DFO should not consider itself on the same level as other departments. For example, HRDC ‘owns’ only money, not a resource. DFO has to distribute the resource for the benefit of the community and will always have a different responsibility.
• That two concepts are mixed in this section – the economic and social viability of communities and the economic and social viability of fishermen. DFO should be careful not to confuse the two.
• Section 4.4.3.1 on self-determination is the foundation of the document; the constraints applied to fisheries management decision making are extremely important.
• That the fleet separation policy is essential in the fishery of the future.
• That DFO should clarify what it means by ‘participant’ in the fishery (section 4.3.3.3).

III. Access and Allocations

What we heard:

• It is difficult to establish access and allocation policies that are fair without having a social objective.
• There does not appear to be a policy on how DFO grants access to the resource (if you’re in, you’re in, but it is not clear how you get in). Decisions appear to be made on short term, rather than long term objectives.
• DFO must consider the benefits to Canada and Canadians when allocating the resource.
• A mechanism is needed to review current allocations; there appears to be a desire by DFO to fix the current arrangements, although the industry carries huge grievances about the current arrangements.
• A concern that, if current allocation arrangements are the starting point, the North should be treated differently.
• One major issue in the North is access to the resource; given that summer starts in July, northern fishermen must fish in the south to be competitive but they do not have access to southern stocks.
• DFO should re-consider its vessel replacement rules.
• That DFO seems to accord a preference or priority to aquaculture and recreational fisheries access to the resource.
• It is important to fix existing shares – in a number of existing fisheries these are already entrenched and have involved a great deal of investment. On the other hand, there would have to be exceptions, particularly in terms of Northern access to resources.
• It will be important to develop appropriate mechanisms whereby interested parties can agree on handling increases or decreases in stocks.
• It will be important to fix shares for specific timeframes (5 years is not long when you consider the investment in large, offshore vessels).
• Section 4.5.4.3.1, established commercial fisheries, does not need the sub-categories of fisheries – it is recognized that a fishery could be in different sub-categories at any given time.
• This section should be reduced to two categories of fishery: established commercial fisheries and emerging fisheries.
• The concept of ‘best use’ is not adequately covered; as written it is vague.
• Adjacency should be a principle.
• DFO should decentralize more decision making to the Regions.
• DFO has not had a clear allocations policy; if it did, allocations decisions could still be made by the department. Just because DFO is suggesting it remove itself from the commercial allocations process does not mean that any new process would be any better.
• Agreement that DFO needs a clearly articulated allocations policy.
• The examples used in this section should be removed.
• When defining the allocations process, DFO should be specific on the criteria that will be used to allocate the resource.
• That an arbitration board might not be the way to go; members would have to be knowledgeable about all aspects of the fishery. DFO would have to consider whether such a board would be Atlantic-wide, provincial, local, etc. The cost of boards could be prohibitive, and the workload could be massive.
• The document should refer to an ‘arbitration mechanism’, one that is clearly defined, governed by specific rules and used only in exceptional cases.
• That the idea of an arbitration board should not be discounted.
• That the fourth principle should be re-written to indicate that recreational and aquaculture access to fisheries will be considered when expanded fishing opportunities exist.
• A recognition that this is a policy review, not a review of the allocation policy and process.
• Industry will have to demonstrate that it is doing as well as it can – if it is doing everything right, and living up to the principles, it has nothing to fear; if not, then the Government has the right to re-allocate resources and decide in the best interests of Canadians.
• That DFO must allow people tenure and stability in the allocation process. Performance measurement guidelines and review mechanisms will be necessary, while at the same time allowing some flexibility in the system.
  

IV. Governance

What we heard:

• It is vital that the scientific advisory process continue to evolve; DFO has fewer and fewer resources and the scientific advice is getting weaker.
• That the idea of paying a ‘fair charge’ for gaining access to the resource does not offer much comfort.
• A portion of the user charges should be applied to building the capacity of industry to accept additional responsibilities.
• A proposal that a small group (of External Advisory Board members) meet to achieve consensus on the principles.
• The Regional Advisory Process should be given more prominence in the document.
• There is a need for an oceans policy; fisheries management policy is only a small part of the big picture but there is a requirement for coordination between the two.
• If the industry is to assume more responsibility, it must understand that it is not alone in the process, other interests, and the resource itself, must be adequately considered.
• It is confusing when DFO says that everyone will work together, yet the Department retains responsibility for determining best use.
• Different ‘classes’ of interest are referred to (licence holders, resource users, etc.) but it must be recognized that there is a certain ‘hierarchy’ of interests, both direct and indirect users of the resource.
• That DFO should look to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, particularly the guidelines and procedures for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, when it develops its procedures for co-management.
• There is a perception that co-management means the downloading of costs onto the industry.
• In this section of the document, DFO has not significantly acknowledged the work that is already underway and the accomplishments of industry.
• If DFO wants resource users to be good managers, DFO must be prepared to provide them with stable access to the resource.
• Industry is already paying for access to the resource, the principle implies that this is something new.
• There are frequent references in this section to ‘paternalism’; there is more consultation and interaction on fisheries issues than in any other industry and these references should be toned down, or eliminated.
• That the user charges should be more equitably shared between fleets.
• There should be a ‘tiering’ of those involved in the decision making process, with those who will suffer the consequences having a larger voice than those who would be unaffected.

V. Roles and Responsibilities

What we heard:

• Section A2.1.2 – reference to the gaspereau fishery should be omitted.
• DFO seems to have recently adopted a policy that they do not have the mandate to promote professionalization in the industry; they appear to be leaving it up to the provinces.

Consultations

The AFPR Working Group will make revisions to the document based on issues/concerns heard at the EAB meeting. Following this, and after internal approval of the document by DFO, the document will be released to the public. The target date for release of the document is late summer with a planned wide distribution throughout Atlantic Canada and Nunavut (the AFPR mailing list is approximately 900 organizations and individuals). Copies of the document will also be available at all DFO offices, and through DFO’s web site. As requested at the public information sessions last summer, there would be a delay between the release of the document and public consultations to allow recipients to review the document.

In addition to the Executive Summary and the Discussion Document, DFO also plans to produce a brochure highlighting key messages in the document.

Public consultations are tentatively planned for the early Fall. Dates and locations of the consultations will be widely publicized and open to all. Some options on the format of the consultations were discussed. DFO is proposing that there be a structured agenda, with pre-registration for those who wish to make presentations.

In addition to these consultations, comments can be phoned, faxed, e-mailed or mailed to the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review in Ottawa.

Comments from External Advisory Board members on public consultations included:

• That the sessions should be led by DFO.
• A request for a six week period between release of the document and the public consultations.
• That an additional location be included to the list for Nova Scotia.
• That DFO may wish to consider a public session on the North East coast of Newfoundland.
• The consultations may be hard to manage, particularly if many people want to make presentations.
• Priority should be given to written presentations.

DFO is open to meeting bilaterally with organizations, and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests but fundamentally this is a public process and meeting summaries will be posted on the Internet. It was also noted that those who make presentations should expect that this will become public.

Next Steps

The AFPR Working Group will make revisions to the document based on issues/concerns heard at the EAB meeting. Following this, and after internal approval of the document by DFO, the document will be released to the public. The next meeting of the External Advisory Board will be held following public consultations in the Fall.

First Meeting of the External Advisory Board

Meeting Summary - January 25, 2000

Opening Remarks

The Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Wayne Wouters, welcomed attendees to the first meeting of the External Advisory Board and covered a number of points, including:

• Recognition of the diversity of membership on the Board which is indicative of the complexity and challenge in developing a policy framework for the Atlantic Coast fisheries.
• While a renewed Atlantic fishery remains essential for many Atlantic Canadians, a knowledge-based and diversified economy is also important.
• With continued restraint in government spending and a growing private sector, Atlantic Canada is making the transition towards greater self-reliance and a much more dynamic economy, the ultimate goal being to achieve social well-being supported by a vibrant economy and sustained by a healthy environment.
• The fishing industry has adapted well to post-moratorium realities; landings and exports have recovered but there still remain unresolved issues.
• That the policy review is one of the Deputy’s most important priorities and that he is committed to a new direction for the management of the future fishery which is anchored in conservation, makes the shared stewardship of the resource a reality and which re-shapes our relationship with all our clients to include more involvement in decision-making.

The Deputy then touched on his expectations for the External Advisory Board:

• Counting on Board members to provide DFO with informed advice and guidance on the issues put forward for discussion as their input is important.
• We need to take ownership of the principles for managing the fishery, keeping in mind that the fisheries resource is a common property owned by all Canadians.
• A hope that members will keep their own interests in their back pockets and encouragement to keep discussions focussed at a high level – the big picture, although it is recognized that it will be hard to resist the temptation to move to details (the how and what). By keeping the discussions at a high level, we will be able to have a clear understanding of where we are going before DFO begins to make operational changes.
• Members are not expected to always agree with DFO, or each other, but their expertise and experience are valued.
• The Deputy offered a couple of words of advice to Board members: to exercise caution when shaping decisions to avoid making irreversible mistakes but at the same time, a lack of certainty should not prevent decisive actions for sustainability.

Presentation on the AFPR

Points raised after the presentation included:

• The policy approval process – The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will approve the policy principles which together form a policy framework. Approval of the policy framework will not happen until public consultations are completed (the consultations are tentatively scheduled for April).
• It is important to consider a wide range of views. Although the focus is on fisheries management, DFO is looking for advice on how to include other, non-commercial participants at the public consultations, since ultimately the policy will apply to all users of the resource and other interests.
• A need for DFO to have an integrated socio-economic approach to communities, to which DFO responded that the goal is to achieve a balance among economic, social, and biological objectives for the fishery, while ensuring that conservation of the resource is paramount.
• DFO will accept comments on the draft discussion document in any form that people wish to use (verbal, written submissions, e-mail, etc.).
• The challenge in preparing the discussion document will be to avoid using jargon and to construct the document in such a way that clarity is provided in key areas.
• DFO should include a description of the process followed by the Review in the discussion document.
• There is unlikely ever to be consensus on "detail" so this phase of the review will have to stay at a high level.
• A question on the need for a policy review; given a changing society, and an acknowledgement that meetings such as this one are useful.
  

Outline of the Discussion Document

Following a presentation on the outline of the discussion document, points raised included:

• The need for a definition of "self-reliant".
• An indication that DFO is not advocating either the IQ fishery or competitive; what the document may say is that DFO will foster the conditions to allow fishermen to make better, informed choices.
• The document should contain a definition of "Atlantic fisheries", which is being used to describe Newfoundland, the Maritime provinces, Quebec and the Eastern Arctic.
• The document should not use the word "subsidy" and must make clear that when we refer to ‘stability’, it does not mean income stabilization, rather it refers to longer term access and allocation.
• There is a need to balance out perceived inequities, particularly with respect to costs that fishermen are being asked to assume – all governments should work together to achieve this.
• The discussion document should present future scenarios; and should indicate how "best use" of the resource will be reconciled with "stability".
• The need for definitions of "adjacency" and "fleet sector" referred to in the document, recognizing that if DFO moves toward self-determination for fishermen, the fleets will have to be defined. (Adjacency is of special concern to Labrador and Nunavut).
• There are many activities currently being carried out by governments that could be taken over by others but a balance would still have to remain.
• The document should make clear that, when responsibilities are given to industry, accountability is also given and an arbitration mechanism established.
• The definition of conservation as "sustainable use" is helpful.
• DFO should indicate in the document the direction in which it wants to go in order to focus discussion and get meaningful reactions when the public consultations are held. The document should pose a number of questions for discussion.
• Since the owner-operator policy is essential to the inshore fleets, this should be a principle.
• If this policy foundation is built correctly, it will stand the test of time - essential to this is controlling Canadian ownership, the resource managed for the benefit of all Canadians, a commitment to communities and entrenchment of this in policy.
• The further away you move vessel ownership and control of the resource from fishermen and coastal communities, the more difficult it will be to achieve a conservation attitude.
• The future of the fishery is in the past and the credibility of DFO in its conservation mandate is suspect (cod and salmon).
• A commitment must be made to conservation, which must be detailed and clear in the document. Precautionary approach is more than just a science approach – the document must make this clear.
• It is normal in a common resource that the decision-making process is political; the role of the owner (DFO) is to make the decisions, although the process must be clearly identified.
• The question of vessel length and current policies on vessel size should be addressed in the document, as should processing at sea.
• Reference should be made in the document to how technology has changed (this is particularly important in the processing sector).

Consultation Process/Location of Public Meetings

Points raised after the presentation included:

• A concern that, given the proposed timing of the consultations (April), they will likely be poorly attended. Others suggested that any time would be problematic and DFO should consult when the document is ready.
• The public consultations should be structured and DFO should have a more formal consultation process for Associations; represented fishermen could contribute to the review through their Associations.
• DFO has made a commitment to public consultations and, while it is important for industry associations to participate, other groups should be afforded the same opportunity.
• That DFO should take their time and "do it right".
• On the question of how many locations should DFO target, it was suggested that the consultations should be held by region (i.e. Gulf), rather than by province. For the most part, the consultations would likely average out to about 2 locations per province.

Next Steps

It is out intention to hold the next meeting of the External Advisory Board in March at which time DFO intends to provide members with copies of the draft discussion document.