Final Report Qualitative Research for DFO Strategic Plan Development - March 2004

---

Prepared for
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO)

March, 2004

LES ÉTUDES DE MARCHÉ CRÉATEC +
206, Avenue des Pins East - Montreal (Québec) H2W 1P1
Tel.: (514) 844-1127 - Fax: (514) 288-3194
Email: info@createc.ca / Web Site: www.createc.ca

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.Background, Purpose and Methodology

2.Key Findings

2.1 Familiarity and Awareness

2.2 Departmental Focus, Direction and Balance

2.3 Decision-Making

2.4 Aboriginal Issues

2.5 The Canadian Coast Guard

2.6 Aquaculture

2.7 Species at Risk Act

2.8 Offshore Drilling

3.Implications

4.Concluding Comments

---

1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Background, Purpose and Methodology

Background

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has committed to a thorough review and possible renewal of its vision and strategic direction in 2004. While DFO conducted a comprehensive benchmark survey in 2001 (updated in February 2003), there was a need for more qualitative information and perhaps some additional quantitative data to address issues not examined in earlier work.

Purpose

• DFO wanted to conduct an exploratory study to seek public views to help the Department develop its strategic plan with regard to 5 key areas:

• DFO's key audiences are in Canada's coastal areas with representation in the north and central regions, including freshwater areas.

Objectives of the Study

• To ascertain views held by the general public and some key stakeholders about the evolving vision, mandate and strategic objectives of the Department, including:

1. Awareness of the Department and its challenges
2. Departmental focus – fisheries vs. broader oceans management
3. Balance regarding short-term vs. long-term issues, use vs. protection, protection/regulation vs. needs of local communities
4. Sustainable use and other related terms
5. Participatory approach and stakeholder influence
6. Trust -- in science and in the Department
7. Risks worth taking
8. Oceans and freshwater
9. Aboriginal issues
10. Species at Risk Act
11. Aquaculture
12. The Canadian Coast Guard
13. Proposed DFO goals

Research Approach

• A national study comprising 16 focus groups was conducted in 6 Canadian provinces and 1 territory from February 26 to March 10, 2004, with a total of 95 participants.

• 14 anglophone groups were held in Moncton (NB), Halifax (NS), Grand Falls (NL), Yellowknife (NT), Vancouver (BC), Nanaimo (BC) and Sault Ste. Marie (ON).

• 2 francophone groups were held in Quebec City (QC).

• In each of the 8 locations, one group was with the general public and the other with either stakeholders (Halifax, Grand Falls, Yellowknife, Nanaimo and Quebec) or Aboriginal people (Moncton, Vancouver and Sault Ste. Marie).

• While public opinion surveys can tap the Canadian public's views as a whole, qualitative research canvasses individual opinions by posing questions and listening, and having participants answer freely. Focus group discussions provide an appropriate context for participants to express their views with the flexibility, tone and direction they desire.

• The qualitative process is not to build consensus, but to explore awareness, perceptions and views. The moderator's role here was not to inform or suggest right or wrong answers, but to facilitate the discussion, to collect information and to observe, while encouraging participants to interact freely.

• As in all qualitative research, and in accordance with the Code of Ethics and Standards of the Professional Marketing Research Society (PMRS), findings from this study may or may not be regarded as statistically representative of the target population at large. However, this research may be further pursued by other instruments to contribute to our knowledge base; for example, if statistically valid results are desired, a separate follow-up quantitative survey is an option.

Target Audience

• 3 populations were targeted: involved/informed members of the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal people.
• Participants from the 8 general public and 3 Aboriginal sessions were recruited randomly by Createc+, and included a mix of gender, age, occupation and educational backgrounds. In the past 2 years, no one or their families worked for marketing, research, PR or advertising companies, nor for any media, radio or TV, or for any level of the municipal, provincial or federal government, or for commercial fisheries, aquaculture, marine biology or oceanography. Stakeholders were drawn from DFO-supplied lists.

Discussion Guide

• The client-approved discussion guide in both English and French can be found in Appendix 1.

---

top of page

2.  Key Findings

• When reading this summary, it is important to note that this study was particularly complex and multi-faceted, with over a dozen topics to explore within a 2-hour period. This left little time to fully probe many areas and respondent comments, or to query apparent conflicting views.
• In addition, the 95 participants, especially within the general public and Aboriginal population segments, weren't always consistent within themselves, and sometimes changed and/or expanded their views during the discussions. While tendencies did emerge, some atypical responses are included in the range of reaction reported in this study. Any anomalies may be further clarified by additional in-depth research.

---

top of page

2.1 Familiarity and Awareness

• Initially, most general public and Aboriginal participants in this study were largely unaware of DFO and its mandate. Their connections to DFO issues were usually based on emotional responses to negative media coverage, and observed declining environmental conditions.
• In contrast, most stakeholders were well-informed, knowledgeable and highly involved with many of the issues discussed during their sessions.
• While indifference often goes with low awareness, it was not observed here. By the end of the discussions, DFO's initial low proximity and impact had shifted. People generally showed a keen interest in DFO and felt that what the Department did or did not do was very important to them in their particular locales, and to Canada.

Main Impressions of DFO

• Overall, confusion over DFO's role and numerous responsibilities gave the impression that DFO lacked focus or a real commitment to any particular issue.
• However, as discussions progressed, fish and fish-related issues, such as habitat, conservation, quotas, etc., emerged as a distinctive competency of DFO.
• All 3 population segments saw DFO as a large bureaucracy, but not a powerful one, a perception fueled mainly by 2 factors: (1) a "scattered" mandate, and (2) a strong impression that funding and resources were too limited.

• People in this study assumed that if DFO had political importance, they would have the necessary funding to carry out and focus on specific and important tasks.

• On the positive side, all 3 populations segments seemed to value DFO research and scientific expertise. However, some participants, including many stakeholders, expressed concern and anger that this important DFO function had been gradually cutback in recent years.
• While DFO evoked a wide range of positive, neutral and negative impressions, discussions tended to focus much more on the negative. However, in the following table, an equal number of positive and negative views are presented.

Table 1 Key Positive and Negative Impressions of DFO

POSITIVE IMPRESSIONS

NEGATIVE IMPRESSIONS

1)DFO research and studies 2)Enforcement of fish quotas 3)Management of marine resources 4)Conservation efforts re fish and fish habitat 5)Establishment of standards, policies and regulations 6)Some dedicated DFO staff 7)Coast Guard search and rescue operations 8)Maintaining sovereignty of Canada's coastline and maintaining Canada's waterways 9)Progressive attitude, compared to other GoC Departments 10)Recent attempts to improve situation for First Nations peoples 11)Employer 12)Do many things

1)Poor enforcement re over-fishing 2)Under-funded 3)Lack of leadership, political will and influence in Ottawa, often influenced by big money 4)Poor enforcement re pollution and fish farms 5)Lack of research and funding, conflicting research 6)Poor conflict resolution skills with Aboriginals 7)Lack of consultation with local communities, industries 8)Unemployment in fishery communities 9)Bureaucracy, red tape 10)Lack of focus/vision, no clear long-term strategy, mandate too wide 11)Over-regulation and enforcement inconsistency re commercial enterprises 12)High cost of fishing licenses, sport & commercial

Perceived DFO Challenges

• After the discussions were underway, participants seemed to easily understand that DFO was facing very tough challenges.
• Some thought a key DFO challenge was to balance conflicting interests.

• However, most wanted DFO to become advocates for the fish, fish habitat and conservation. Participants didn't want DFO to balance anything, but to fight it out with other departments or agencies to protect marine life and habitat.

• When discussing challenges, many general public and Aboriginal participants seemed somewhat overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues, and felt they lacked the competence to do these issues justice.

• What they seemed to want most of all was reassurance that these complicated issues and challenges would be dealt with an effective way.

• In fact, reassurance that DFO had the means, political will and expertise to take care of the upcoming challenges seemed to be a stronger public need than understanding.

• Participants seemed concerned that they did not know any examples or reasons to be reassured.

• The implications from these findings are important:

• Reassurance is less likely to come about through a better understanding of DFO challenges, than through real-life demonstrations that DFO has the means, the political will and the expertise to deal with these challenges.

• Overall, participants rather consistently cited 10 main issues and challenges they thought the Department would be facing over the next few years.

• (1) Declining fish stocks was the overriding concern, (2) 14 specific environmental challenges were named, ranging from conservation, to the affects of forestry, agriculture, climate change, disease, habitat destruction, invasive species and endangered species (3) the need for good science, (4) economic issues, especially funding (5) the need for collaboration with other departments, governments and stakeholders, (6) dealing with fishermen and Aboriginal fisheries, (7) DFO leadership, (8) DFO jurisdiction, (9) role of the Coast Guard, and (10) improving the negative image of DFO.

Terminology

• Most participants had considerable difficulty understanding certain terms, including aquaculture, sustainable development, environmental sustainability, and sustainable use. The last 3 were seen as meaningless political double-talk.
• From a communications perspective, this is a key finding. Many participants in various locations clearly stated they wanted "plain language" used, instead of "gobbledy-gook". The issues were too important to hide using obscure and confusing terms.
• Most participants, including stakeholders, agreed that the best term to represent conservation was the actual word "conservation."

---

top of page

2.2  Departmental Focus, Direction and Balance

• On the whole, participants in this study didn't know what DFO was doing, whether DFO was going in the right or wrong direction, or what DFO wanted to do because they saw DFO as having too broad a mandate, and too many responsibilities.

• Many, including stakeholders, generally agreed that the DFO mandate was severely hampered by a lack of funds, manpower and equipment.

• DFO wanted to ascertain whether participants thought DFO should focus on fisheries management or broader oceans management. In principle, participants would seem to support a broader oceans management strategy because it included oceans.

• However, most people in all 3 population segments did not think in these terms. Many saw this as a false dichotomy, because both fisheries and oceans were of equal importance, and very much related to one another.

• In addition, the term "broader" suggested a continuation of DFO's current overly-broad mandate, rather than a change for the better. And to some, the term "oceans management" was an "oxymoron."

• In general, participants who believed DFO should focus on oceans management included fisheries management in their definition.

• Others reluctantly decided DFO should focus on fisheries management, mainly because it seemed less overwhelming, somewhat more feasible and more in keeping with DFO expertise than broader oceans management, since foreign countries were involved with the latter.

• The fisheries vs. broader oceans management issue was relevant and had meaning only to a few stakeholders, but again they cared more about what they saw as the major problem – declining fish stocks.

• Overall, short-term socio-economic vs. long-term goals for a healthy environment seemed like a natural and meaningful duality for most respondents. Consistently, participants in this study opted for a long-term environmental emphasis.

• Although some expressed sympathy for those who depended on fish for their livelihood, others didn't want DFO to make any trade-offs. Instead, they wanted DFO to advocate for and on behalf of fish and fish habitat, and let other departments fight for the socio-economic goals of communities.

• Environmental protection and regulation vs. local community needs was also a natural and meaningful duality to most participants. And a difficult issue for some. Overall, most participants believed DFO should err on the side of the environment, since that had the biggest impact on the future, and future generations.

• Some, especially in Grand Falls, believed DFO had a duty and responsibility to support the needs of the local economy.

• In addition, some believed DFO should work together with other pro-environment departments and levels of government to achieve these ends, and remedy the perceived current duplication of effort and wasted resources.

• Oceans and freshwater habitat issues were generally seen as inter-related, and participants had difficulty deciding which was more serious. Most wanted DFO to take responsibility for both, but some wanted DFO to share these responsibilities with various federal or provincial departments. There was little awareness that DFO was working with other departments on this.

• Some stakeholders wanted the provinces to have jurisdiction over freshwater, while others wanted DFO to share responsibilities and work with other government departments.

• When asked what DFO's focus or priorities should be, people did not talk in terms of "management" of fisheries, oceans, or anything else.

• Instead, some strongly suggested that DFO become "stewards" of the fish, or "advocates for the fish". Fish advocacy would be the sole focus for DFO, who would fight for the fish in any conflicts that emerged in any jurisdiction.

• Some also envisioned an animal welfare type of stance for DFO. In this context, "fish" was used as the generic term for all marine species and their habitat, along with habitat or species stewardship.

• The priorities people suggested for DFO centred around 6 main areas, with the first 2 mentioned most often:

• (1) Fish and their natural habitat, (2) the whole water environment, including oil spills, harsh chemicals and the damage this causes, wild-life protection, and the effects of climate change, (3) increased communication between DFO and the regions, especially in terms of explaining their policies and decisions, (4) Great Lakes and inland lakes, including water quality and healthy fish, (5) decentralized decision-making, including cooperative partnerships between DFO and business, Aboriginal communities, cities and other countries, and (6) aquaculture and its potential for future economic development was suggested mainly by stakeholders, but some in the general public stipulated that strict environmental safeguards be enforced.

• At the end of the discussions, participants were presented with the following set of proposed DFO goals or objectives

1)Fisheries and fish farms which balance community needs with the long-term protection of the environment 2)Healthy and productive lakes, rivers and oceans for our plants and animals, including fish 3)Safe and accessible waterways.

• Overall, the response to this set of goals was generally positive. However, some participants felt that the goals seemed somewhat disjointed, and too short-term. There was absolutely no connection of these goals to the fisheries management vs. broader oceans management issues.

1)Participants had 2 main complaints about the first goal: (1) westerners and some others disliked the inclusion of fish farms because of the harm currently caused to habitat and natural species (2) the idea of balancing community needs suggested to some that the short-term would prevail and to others that economic development was left out.

2)The second objective was generally quite well-liked and received the least critical comment. However, some disliked the word "productive" and felt it implied continued or increased over-fishing, and others wanted the word "estuaries" included.

3)The third objective was appreciated in the east, but generally misunderstood and confusing elsewhere because most people didn't know the Coast Guard was within the DFO mandate, even though this agency had been discussed.

---

top of page

2.3  Decision-Making

• In this study, people had the overall impression that DFO did not manage their decisions well. This perception was based on 5 main factors:

• (1) DFO's overly broad mandate lacked clear focus (2) too easily influenced by industry, foreign governments, polluters of all persuasions, political entities, and Aboriginal communities (3) a lack of funds and resources, (4) a lack of communication and consultation, and (5) a duplication of responsibilities between various government levels and within the federal government.

• All of these made it seem as if DFO had no clear overriding vision to consistently inform any and all of their decisions. This would seem to support the need for core messaging and the consistent use of these messages.

• Participants expressed some ambivalence towards a participatory approach. On the one hand they realized that DFO must share decisions with other entities. And on the other, they worried that this might weaken an already weak Department, if those with more political clout got their way. Several were concerned by the leadership implications of a greater participatory approach, and wanted someone to make the tough decisions.
• Overall, a consultative process involving local stakeholders garnered consistent approval, as long as 3 main criteria were met:

• (1) the inclusion of all stakeholders, (2) transparency and monitoring of the process, and (3) consultations should take place before decisions were made, during the research, planning, and policy development phases, so that stakeholders could provide important and relevant local input.

• The following table briefly outlines the perceived advantages and disadvantages of increased DFO decision-making participation by stakeholders and provinces/territories.

Table 2 Perceived Pros and Cons of Including Stakeholders in DFO Decision-Making

Perceived Pros

Perceived Cons

1)Greater buy-in and support for the decision 2)Local people more knowledgeable, know the area 3)Broader perspective, more and better ideas 4)Greater public awareness 5)After the decision, can move quicker because understood and agreed 6)Greater commitment to the goal 7)Lessen conflict and increase collaboration between federal departments, such as DIA and DFO 8)Ottawa-based decisions covering the entire country can be tailored to each location

1)Stakeholders have different power, so inclusion was key 2)Stakeholders have different mandates, could be working at cross-purposes 3)Decision-making more difficult 4)Confusing to integrate points of view 5)Longer process 6)More expensive process 7)Talking is used as an excuse to maintain the status quo 8)Too much red tape

Science and Research

• Science and research was spontaneously mentioned in many groups and was considered one of the main positive activities carried out by DFO. It was valued highly by most respondents in all locations.

• Scientific research was not only something DFO excelled at, but was what people wanted more of.

• However, there was a strong perception that scientific expertise had become less important and carried less weight at DFO, for 2 main reasons: (1) interests of other stakeholders with political sway and money took precedence, and (2) DFO had severely cut its research budget and function, compared to years ago.
• While the perceived role and importance of DFO research and expertise was consistent, attitudes towards the credibility of such know-how varied.

DFO Risks

• The notion of risk was almost incompatible with the expected role of DFO. People felt that declining fish stocks and a host of environmental concerns were already enough of a risk.

• The word "risk" did not seem to be a helpful term to use.

• Its not surprising therefore, that people in this study wanted DFO to take zero risks with fish and fish habitat but extraordinary risks on behalf of fish and fish habitat.

• In other words, they wanted courageous actions taken to better protect fish and fish habitat, including (1) confrontations with foreign (and other) over-fishers and (2) potentially unpopular political decisions.

• The following table briefly outlines the type of risks that participants, after some deliberation, thought DFO should and should not take.

Table 3 Risks DFO Should and Should Not Take

Risks Worth Taking

Risks Not Worth Taking

1)Political risks -- re offshore fishing, being pro-environment and pro-fish, bad publicity 2)Enforce regulations 3)Prevent dumping and spillage 4)Be more proactive (and less conservative) 5)Be more aggressive 6)Consult with locals 7)Be more flexible on in-season decisions 8)Let the managers on the ground manage, and avoid Ottawa-based interference 9)Jobs and the economy, site specific 10)Become more transparent to Canadians

1)Habitat 2)Fish stocks, numbers 3)Exempting industries re the Fisheries Act, preventing polluters 4)Be less conservative (and more proactive) 5)Health, i.e. mercury levels 6)Water extraction 7)The future in general

---

top of page

2.4  Aboriginal Issues

• Most respondents, including some Aboriginal participants, believed that Aboriginal people should not be allowed to fish without limits because fish stocks were seen to be in a rapid state of decline.
• The duality between the cultural and commercial rights of Aboriginal people was an easy one to grasp for most in this study. Participants clearly accepted the principal of what they saw as "unequal" rights based on cultural considerations, but not based on commercial factors.
• Overall, Aboriginal groups were quite similar to the general public sessions in their low levels of awareness about fisheries issues, and their attitudes and ideas about most topics addressed in this study.

• Most participants in the general public and even Aboriginal sessions did not seem well-informed or very familiar with issues concerning Aboriginal fisheries.

The Marshall Decision

• Most participants in this study had not heard of the Marshall decision. The exceptions were mainly in the east, plus individual participants in various other locations.

• Many participants hoped the federal government was responsible for managing Aboriginal fisheries, but weren't sure if this was the correct interpretation. However, some thought free access with no control, conservation or regulation was probably what was happening.

• Feelings about the Decision tended to be negative in many groups, even among some Aboriginal participants, mainly out of concern for declining fish stocks. In addition, the strong perception of "unequal" and "unfair" fishing rights for non-Aboriginals helped foster a negative attitude towards Aboriginal people.

Perceived Government Obligation

• When asked if the Canadian government was obligated to create social and economic opportunities for Aboriginal people in the fishing and habitat management sectors, many misinterpreted the question by extending it to greater opportunities in society in general.
• Overall, responses varied. Some felt that the government was obligated because a promise had been made to Aboriginal people, and a wrong had been done. Others, including some Aboriginal respondents, saw no obligation mainly because of over-fishing fish stock depletion. Still others disliked the idea of obligation, and preferred to see the government involved in providing a framework or setting controls.

Perceived Fairness

• When asked if DFO had been fair to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal fishers in how it was responding to the Supreme Court decision on Aboriginal fishing rights, many seemed to interpret the question as asking about fairness per se.
• Among non-Aboriginal participants, the general perception was that DFO was being unfair to non-Aboriginal people, and in fact, some felt that DFO was bending over backwards to appease Aboriginal people.
• Aboriginal participants had differing views as to whether Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people were both treated fairly.

• Some felt the sting of resentment by non-Aboriginal people because of their unlimited fishing and hunting rights. Others were keenly aware of the injustices done to Aboriginal people in the past, and were pleased that DFO was trying to remedy this. Still others saw a lack of fairness, and reasoning that there was a need to preserve the fish, indicated that there should be no special commercial fishery rights for Aboriginal people

• Some Aboriginal participants were keenly aware of the role of politics in all decisions about Aboriginal people. Others not only mentioned the general lack of knowledge about Aboriginal issues, but also the lack of communication between Aboriginal communities and DFO.

Working With Aboriginal People

• All 3 population segments were clear that providing direct funds was not the best way to help Aboriginal people improve their quality of life. Aboriginal respondents especially emphasized this. However, educational funding was generally well-liked.
• Aboriginal people in this study were very clear about the type of support they wanted, and mentioned 8 key areas:

• (1) Education and training, (2) mentoring young people to get them enthusiastic and hopeful about their future, (3) sparking interest early among teens and young people, through trips to expose those aged 5-6, or 11-12 to larger issues, or guest speakers at Aboriginal schools, (4) scholarships, related to the environment or fishing, (5) partnerships, (6) job creation, (7) conservation efforts, to ensure the future, and (8) provide equipment if needed.

---

top of page

2.5  The Canadian Coast Guard

• Overall, impressions of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) were very positive. However, while stakeholders generally knew DFO was responsible for the Coast Guard, most general public and Aboriginal participants did not.
• Most participants seemed to view the CCG as a law enforcement agency, but some saw them more as a civilian organization, because of the life-saving search and rescue operations.
• While participants came up with the following 9 main services provided by the CCG, most were only aware of the first 2, some knew about items 3 and 4, and just a handful were familiar with the rest.

• (1) Search and rescue, seen as the most important service, and mentioned in almost all groups, (2) patrolling, monitoring and guarding Canadian waters, including the coastlines and borders, against drug runners and traffickers in human cargo, (3) ice-breaking, (4) boating laws, including a heavy involvement in shipping lanes, (5) navigational aids, such as chart and ocean mapping, (6) enforcement of the NWPA, (7) weather observation, (8) protecting the environment, including pollution control, and (9) education.

• Overall, an important and consistent finding among most participants in this study was that the Coast Guard did not have sufficient resources to fulfill its various roles. There were not enough boats, equipment or manpower.

• In fact, the only reasons given for having less Coast Guard involvement in both the Arctic and public security was a lack of funding and resources to support these functions.

---

top of page

2.6  Aquaculture

• Overall, there was low awareness and understanding of the term "aquaculture" among the general public and Aboriginal groups. Many participants in most locations didn't know what it was. However, usually someone in a group knew enough to inform the others. In addition, there were several stakeholders involved in aquaculture in this study – on the west coast, on the east coast and in Quebec.
• When the term "fish farming" was used, discussions could continue. Most participants initially had no idea who was responsible for fish farming/aquaculture. When asked, most thought DFO should assume responsibility. But some said DFO should also work together with a range of other departments, and others wanted Agriculture to take charge.
• While participants came up with slightly more advantages than disadvantages to aquaculture, in most general public and Aboriginal groups there was a strong negative tone to the discussions on this topic due to: (1) unfavourable publicity, mainly about PCB's in farmed salmon, (2) a perceived lack of any positive public information, and (3) observed unimpeded/unregulated environmental destruction, especially in the west. Thus, negative comments tended to prevail.

• Some stakeholders and several others who seemed knowledgeable about aquaculture believed that most of the current problems came about for 2 main reasons: (1) over-regulation [no time to probe what this meant] and uneven application of rules, and (2) lack of good research and information.

• The following outlines aquaculture's perceived advantages and disadvantages

Table 4 Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Aquaculture

Perceived Advantages	Perceived Disadvantages
1)Preserves natural stocks 2)Increases productivity 3)Jobs and the economy 4)Greater predictability, consistent product 5)Consumer benefits: low prices, availability 6)Sustainable industry 7)Uses for waste products, such as fertilizer	1)Food safety concerns due to antibiotics, PCB's 2)Detrimental impact on wild and local species 3)Spreads disease 4)Environmental destruction: coastline, water 5)Genetic problems 6)Noisemakers used to ward off predators harm other species

• Participants were not willing to give up on the future of aquaculture. They thought the industry could be improved and better-regulated in 6 main ways:

• (1) Better research and good science, (2) long term funding, (3) a whole new set of rules and regulations, (4) more dialogue between provincial and federal governments, (5) put DFO in charge, so it's under one roof, and (6) land-based fish farms. Some participants in various locations said that while moving fish farms inland away from estuaries would increase costs, it would also solve some problems related to sea lice and wild species contamination.

---

top of page

2.7  Species at Risk Act

• Overall, there was generally low awareness of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Most participants in this study had not heard of it. Those who had heard of it seemed to have varying degrees of information.
• Overall, SARA, which was not in full force at the time of the study, was generally considered to be ineffective by most who had heard of it.
• While some who had heard about SARA felt it was a good attempt to protect species, most who had heard of it felt the legislation would be ineffective, due to 3 main factors:

1. It was unenforceable because it lacked legislative teeth and the needed manpower, and "evaluating catch was full of impracticalities."

2. It had the potential to shut down fisheries, something that alarmed and angered participants in Grand Falls and Nanaimo because it affected livelihoods but did not remedy the real problems contributing to declining fish stocks, especially environmental pollution.

3. It had unknown effects on the ecosystem.

Maintaining Species Balance

• Overwhelmingly and consistently, most participants, including those who had not heard of SARA, agreed that it would be quite acceptable for DFO to limit the fishing of certain species. Some stipulated this would only be okay if it was based on scientific research.
• However, there was also general agreement that it would not be okay for DFO to increase the fishing of another species. Concern was expressed about the potential negative effects of increased quotas.

Wild Salmon Protection

• Aboriginal participants in Vancouver and stakeholders in Nanaimo had only a little time to discuss whether wild salmon should be protected under SARA if conservation measures would hurt the commercial fishery, and if the federal government should try to compensate fishers and industry for any subsequent loss they might suffer.

• While Nanaimo stakeholders were reluctant to answer, the Vancouver Aboriginal respondents all agreed with the protection of wild salmon and with compensation.

---

top of page

2.8  Offshore Drilling

• Offshore drilling wasn't a top-of-mind issue for the most part, although early in the discussions, some participants spontaneously expressed concern about its effects on fish and fish habitat.
• When asked if they believed that offshore drilling for oil and natural gas had damaged the environment, many participants answered in the affirmative.

• Some declared that drilling had already harmed some species (whales) and would probably continue to harm others. Others worried about the still unknown environmental impact on various species and habitat.

• While some east coast participants felt that steps were being taken to minimize or offset such concerns, others in various locations were okay with drilling because they hadn't heard of any specific damage, "yet."

---

top of page

3.  Implications

• In this section, the findings of the research have been briefly linked to the evolving vision, mandate and strategic objectives of the Department.

1.  Sustainable development as the underpinning to the strategic objective: "Working with Canadians to ensure the Sustainable Development and Safe Use of Canadian Waters"

• As an underlying principle, "sustainable development" seems to be an acceptable concept.

• However, given that the term itself was not only poorly understood by general public and Aboriginal participants, but also derided as a cliché and political double-speak, we would strongly suggest that more down-to-earth language be used when communicating with these population segments, and that this term be used sparingly.

• While stakeholders understood the term, they were also critical of its over-use and lack of real meaning.

• People in this study wanted simplified information reassuring them that DFO was focusing on the right issues: namely, the conservation of fish and fish habitat.

• Participants also emphasized that if the idea of conservation or preservation was intended, then those were the terms to be used.

• "Safe use of Canadian waters," while certainly not objectionable, confused most participants, who didn't realize that the Coast Guard was a function of DFO mandate.

• In addition, while the Coast Guard was seen as an important function, it was not among the top priorities envisioned for DFO.

• Most Canadians in this study were only familiar with the Coast Guard's search and rescue, patrolling and ice-breaking services. Other functions, such as those related to safety (navigational aids) were barely mentioned.

• One way to link the Coast Guard to what participants saw as DFO's main mandate would be to reference the idea of protected waters, and Fisheries Officers enforcing regulations, especially with regard to over-fishing.

• In this context, increased funding for the Coast Guard could help reassure Canadians that their interests and the interests of the fish are being looked after by DFO. Increased funding could also allay additional concerns if CCG is to expand its role in security and sovereignty issues.

2.  The premise and objectives of: Healthy and Productive Aquatic Ecosystems, Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, Safe and Accessible Waterways

• There is strong evidence in this study that people would support both the premise and objectives of healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems, and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, although the language used to describe these objectives would need to be simplified.

• For example, using the term "fish-farms" helped participants understand what aquaculture was. Participants appeared to understand the term extended to mussels, oysters and other types of aquaculture beyond "fish".

• However, some took exception to the term "productive" because it seemed to imply the continuation of over-fishing the lakes, rivers and oceans.

• In addition, as mentioned above, while safe and accessible waterways garnered support from participants who knew the Coast Guard was a DFO function, specific reference to the Coast Guard as a means by which the waters and fish would be protected could enhance such support. This is the main way to include the Coast Guard as a primary focus.
• However, about 6 main concerns emerged in relation to the perceived feasibility of these objectives for DFO, including:

• (1) lack of enforcement of rules and regulation pertaining to over-fishing, both by foreign fleets and Aboriginal fishers, (2) lack of enforcement with regard to pollution and dumping/spillage in oceans and freshwater by foreign fleets and large Canadian companies with political and financial clout, and the sludge created by fish-farms ruining the coastlines, (3) bureaucratic red-tape and inconsistencies in systems and processes, (4) cutbacks in the funding needed for equipment and manpower, (5) decreased emphasis on research and cutbacks in research funding, and (6) lack of strong leadership and political will to take a strong stand.

• There is evidence to suggest that Canadians would support and welcome increased funding for:

• The Coast Guard so it could better protect the fish and fish habitat by enforcing over-fishing regulations.

• Research, to better protect the fish and fish habitat and ensure future stocks.

3.  The concept of increased collaboration with fishers, communities and other interested groups, to use alongside science information in decision-making

• Overall, participants were generally in favour of increased collaboration with various stakeholders in DFO's decision-making process, and some stakeholders and Aboriginal participants were aware of DFO's progress in this area.
• However, while people in this study favoured a shared process in principle, they worried mainly that all stakeholders were "not equal." Some feared that provinces/territories and larger industries and organizations had more economic and political clout. Some stakeholders also worried about the ability of DFO to take a strong and decisive leadership role when required.
• In contrast, local influence was seen as highly desirable, with 3 main stipulations:

• (1) inclusion without preference, (2) transparency and monitoring of the process, and (3) consultations should take place before decisions were made, during the research, planning, and policy development phases, so that stakeholders could provide important and relevant local input.

• While Canadians would support using the collaborative process along with science information, they also wanted: (1) increased funding for scientific research and (2) more input from experts.

• Ideally, research would encompass studies conducted not only by DFO, but also from universities, as well as the experiential expertise of local fishers, who wanted input into research before policy decisions were made.

4.  New directions and priorities for the Department, related to: integrated management, smart regulation, fisheries renewal, implementation of the Species at Risk Act, aquaculture and international governance.

• If DFO was to establish a new priority, making fish and fish habitat the main goal would satisfy all 3 population segments in this study.
• And if DFO was to move in a bold new direction, demonstrations of DFO enforcement on over-fishing (especially, but not exclusively, by foreign vessels), could not only demonstrate leadership, but also a commitment to the fish.
• Other process-oriented directions, such as integrated management and smart regulation could also please stakeholders.

• An integrated management approach, where DFO worked with other federal, provincial/territorial and local departments and agencies to harmonize the myriad rules and regulations and to share responsibilities could find support from stakeholders.

• Removing red tape and delegating responsibilities and authority to local or community levels could also help decrease the frustration level of stakeholders.

• However, the unfamiliar Species at Risk Act was considered unfriendly to fish because it did not really address what participants (mainly stakeholders) saw as the main problems contributing to declining fish stocks: namely, over-fishing and pollution-related environmentally-destructive factors.

• Participants in this study tended to see that good environmental stewardship is good economic policy over the long-term. However, fishery closings would not be perceived as logical and sound decisions unless other strong action is simultaneously taken on the environmental aspects. This could be viewed as yet another false dichotomy.

• Aquaculture too, in its current state, generated ambivalence among many. On the one hand, it was economically viable and if run properly, helped ensure enough fish for the future. But on the other hand, failure to enforce rules on environmental pollution and damage to migrating species created alarm and frustration for many in all 3 population segments, especially in the west. Stakeholders in the aquaculture business complained of over-regulation and double-standards.

• Overall, aquaculture/fish farming tended to have a negative reputation. Whatever DFO could do to reassure Canadians that their concerns were being addressed could increase support. This is a topic of considerable interest.

5.  Communications efforts concerning the participation of Aboriginal communities in the fishery and oceans sectors: Aboriginal fisheries, right to access, capacity-building, and relationship-building.

• Working with the Aboriginal fishery, whether in response to the Marshall Decision on the east coast or with access to the west coast fishery, will continue to be a challenge for DFO communications and decision-makers.
• Not only was there low awareness of treaty rights, the nature of Supreme Court decisions on fishing rights and DFO activities to ensure Aboriginal access to the fishery, but there was low interest and varying levels of frustration demonstrated in this study, in all locations.
• Overall, while most general public participants supported traditional and cultural fishing rights for Aboriginals, they and some Aboriginal people were generally opposed to unlimited commercial access, and felt this is unfair to non-Aboriginal fishers.

• Most in this study were mainly concerned with declining fish stocks and environmental issues, and saw over-fishing as a prime cause, regardless of who does it. Aboriginal participants were generally aware of and understood the resentment created by those in their community who over-fish.

• Given the above climate, DFO needs to be judicious in the dissemination of information to the general public about the Aboriginal fishery, lest current negative attitudes and perceptions of unfairness are exacerbated.

• Aboriginal participants, on the other hand, wanted increased communication with DFO, more consultation and more information shared by the Department. Such consultative and communicative efforts between DFO and the Aboriginal community would find support among the general public.
• Participants in this study, including Aboriginals, were clearly in support of progress in education and training, mentoring programs, partnerships, and efforts to create jobs and businesses for Aboriginal communities.

---

top of page

4.  Concluding Comments

HOW CANADIANS CONNECT WITH FISHERIES AND OCEANS

• Fisheries and oceans issues were abstract and esoteric topics for most participants from the general public and Aboriginal segments. They tended to see fisheries and oceans as an environmental/ecological process rather than an economic one, and also one in which values are becoming more globally-oriented.
• Most general public and Aboriginal participants possessed only a surface or simplistic understanding of fisheries and oceans issues, and had only general impressions, without specific awareness or knowledge. Most wanted to rely on the opinions of experts. Thus issues need to be simplified and explained in practical terms.
• In contrast, stakeholders were generally knowledgeable and well-informed, and in some cases, passionately involved.
• Respondents in all 3 segments wanted to be reassured that someone is committed, in charge, and taking care of the future of our fish supply and marine ecosystems.

• The personal relevance of fisheries and oceans issues to most participants from the 3 target populations seemed to be solidly based on emotional, ethical and environmental concerns.

• Moral and ethical behavior, animal rights, and environmental conservation were the underlying forces that motivated respondents on fisheries and oceans issues.

• For most, these took precedence over perceived economic concerns. While many saw the short-term negative impact on local communities of long-term decisions, they had strong emotional reactions about letting local communities come before the fish. Only the groups in Grand Falls and Nanaimo were passionately driven by concerns about both economics and the environment.

• During the discussions, as many respondents from all 3 target populations realized the magnitude of the issues facing the Department, they seriously doubted DFO had the resources, ability or political will to conserve, protect or improve fish stocks and fish habitats.

• However, when DFO visibly and clearly demonstrates commitment to the conservation and improvement of fish stocks and healthier marine ecosystems, support will likely grow. The old adage of not just doing good, but being seen to do good, applies here.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR COMMUNICATIONS

One Specific Focus

• By the end of the discussions, participants had expressed a clear interest in DFO plans and actions in the immediate and distant future.
• People in this study seemed to need one overarching idea to focus on, and the one that emerged most favourably was conservation, which could be expressed in the following way:

  • Working hard for the future of our fish stocks and healthy marine ecosystems

• This was already seen as one of DFO's distinct competencies, and could resonate well with all 3 population segments.

Direction

• The term "broader oceans management" was not well-received.

• While the idea of DFO moving to include the oceans (as a place where fish live) was generally accepted, the term "broader oceans management" played on a major criticism of the groups, that DFO had too broad a mandate and was stretched too thin.

• The problem did not seem to be with the principles of the broader oceans management strategy, but more the language being used.

• Thus, when communicating with the general public, care will need to be taken to avoid using terms that imply expansion, broadness, or more.

Balance

• People in the general public and Aboriginal groups were not particularly interested in DFO's processes and needs to balance various aspects. This only served to confuse the issues, distract from people's main concerns (declining fish stocks, the environment, under-funding) and contribute to the already prevalent perception that DFO was unfocused and serving too many masters.
• When communicating with the general public, the clear conclusion would be to omit references to DFO's balancing efforts and keep the focus on the main goal.

• In other words, talk to people in terms of moral and ethical behavior, animal rights, and environmental conservation -- terms likely to encourage emotional involvement, and support for DFO. Talk to them about caring for the fish, looking after the fish, protecting the fish, and conserving the fish (and fish habitat).

• In contrast, when communicating with stakeholders, including Aboriginal fishers and those involved in the industry, inform them about DFO's balancing efforts, because they would most likely find these of interest and relevance.

Enforcement

• In addition, there is a need to inform Canadians in all 3 population segments that DFO is serious about enforcing over-fishing regulations especially, as well as habitat polluters.

If DFO is not taken seriously on the enforcement side, the whole credibility of the Department is likely to be questioned.