What we heard report: Regional perspectives on adapting Canadian fisheries to a changing climate

On this page

• Disclaimer
• Executive summary
  • Overview of the regional workshops
  • Key takeaways
  • Recommendations for ways forward
    • Improve fisheries management for greater ecosystem protection and sustainable development
    • Enhance data availability, transparency and strategic planning capacity to support modernized fisheries
    • Support an adaptive and climate-ready fishing industry
  • Conclusion
• Report
  • Context
  • Regional workshops
  • Overview of the workshops
  • Regional what we heard reports
  • Summary analysis
    • Impacts of the changing climate and areas of significant concern
    • Adaptation actions underway
    • Barriers to adaptation
    • Looking to the future
  • Conclusion

Regional what we heard reports

• Adapting British Columbia’s fisheries to a changing climate
• Adapting Maritimes fisheries to a changing climate
• Adapting Northern fisheries to a changing climate
• Adapting Eastern Arctic fisheries to a changing climate
• Adapting Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries to a changing climate
• Adapting Gulf fisheries to a changing climate
• Adapting Quebec fisheries to a changing climate

Disclaimer

The following report contains opinions expressed by those who attended the regional workshop sessions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).

Throughout this report, participant views are represented as received by DFO. However, in some instances there are discrepancies between participant interpretations and what is authorized by DFO. As such, participant comments may not correspond to the statutory, regulatory, and policy framework as understood by DFO. In addition, participant recommendations noted below reflect general consensus but should not be interpreted as having received unanimous consent.

Lastly, as the report covers comments from all regions across all discussion topics, some comments may be region-specific and therefore not applicable to all regions.

Executive summary

Overview of the regional workshops

From May to December 2024, DFO held a series of seven regionally focused workshops to discuss climate change impacts, barriers to adaptation, and actions to support the resilience of Canada’s wild-capture fish harvesters and harvesting industry.

Key takeaways

Impacts of the changing climate and areas of significant concern for participants include:

• Rapid and significant environmental changes: Participants observed shifts in environmental factors such as warming water temperatures, shifting currents, reductions in snowpack and sea ice, thawing permafrost, and fluctuating and/or low levels of water.
• Species impacts: Across all seven workshops, participants reported varying degrees of impacts on species, including marine mammals. Observations included changes to distribution, migration, abundance, and lifecycle patterns.
• Invasive species: The presence of invasive species is increasing across all three coasts.
• Fish health: Noticeable impacts on fish health, as participants reported increasing signs of disease, poor reproduction rates, and changes to the colour and texture of the flesh of some species.
• Changing weather patterns: Predictability of harvesting seasons and harvester safety are being increasingly jeopardized by more frequent and intense storms, changing wind patterns, shifting freeze/thaw times, and the thickness of sea ice. On the west coast, there are significant concerns over climate-driven weather events such as heat domes, flooding, and landslides.
• Economic impacts: There were significant concerns about potential financial impacts from fishery closures, which may become more frequent due to climate-related impacts on species viability (distribution, abundance, disease, etc.).
• Cultural impacts: Participants noted significant concern over potential threats to culturally important species and traditional harvesting practices.
• Food security: Participants expressed concerns that the changing climate could pose legitimate threats to food security, although there may also be opportunities to enhance food security.
• Fisheries management: Participants shared broad concerns that the current fisheries management regime is not flexible enough to respond to the rapidly evolving impacts of climate change in a way that is timely and supports harvesters.

Adaptation efforts identified by participants include:

• Research, monitoring, and data collection: Participants gave examples of some of their own research, monitoring, and data collection efforts, emphasizing the importance of standardized data collection to respond faster to climate impacts.
• New technologies and methods: Ongoing efforts include adapting fishing gear for changing bait availability, using excluder devices to reduce bycatch, developing predictive tools, as well as investigating different harvesting methods and low-emission vessels.
• Communication, education, and partnerships: Participants highlighted the interconnectedness of all resource users and the importance of collaboration across regions and sectors. They have also sought opportunities to share resources and knowledge. Many participants have continued to advocate for co-management processes and the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge (IK) ^{Footnote 1 Footnote 2 Footnote 3} into DFO science and decision-making processes.
• Planning and logistics: Some participants have engaged in risk assessments and/or adaptation planning exercises (e.g., scenario planning). We also heard about logistical adaptations such as shifting harvest times (e.g., to the very beginning of a fishing season) and the modification of boating practices in response to changing water levels.

Barriers to adaptation identified by participants include:

• Funding supports: Participants highlighted the need for more flexible and accessible funding to support high costs related to fishery transitions, green technologies, habitat restoration, climate adaptation, and research.
• Science and data: We heard that a lack of long-term, comprehensive, and trusted data—including social, economic, and cultural data—limits the ability to distinguish climate change impacts from other factors such as natural variability, and significantly hinders the predictive capacity needed for planning. This also tends to result in a reactive rather than proactive fisheries management regime that is often using outdated information for decision making.
• Infrastructure: Participants emphasized the need for future-ready harbour infrastructure that is capable of supporting green fleets, resilient to climate impacts, and strategically located. Particularly in the Eastern Arctic workshop, participants highlighted the lack of food-processing facilities as a significant barrier to Inuit participation in fisheries and the need for emergency response infrastructure across the Arctic coast.
• Current fisheries management regime: Participants across all regions viewed the current fisheries management regime as a major barrier to adaptation, citing its slow, rigid, and inflexible nature, which hinders timely responses to changing environmental conditions.
• DFO’s organizational structure: Participants noted that the structure of DFO can lead to a lack of coordination within the Department and across jurisdictions. This can result in slow, fragmented responses and hinders a broader comprehensive approach to fisheries management.
• Inclusivity and Indigenous involvement: The lack of recognition and inclusion of IK, along with limited involvement in fisheries management governance and science, was seen as a barrier by participants.
• Transparency, collaboration and communication: Participants emphasized the importance of strengthening transparency, trust, and communication. There was a strong desire for more inclusive and collaborative partnerships, clearer and more accessible communication channels, and open sharing of decision-making processes, scientific research, and climate change information. Enhancing these elements was seen as key to building trust between DFO, Indigenous groups, and other stakeholders, and to fostering more effective and equitable outcomes.

Recommendations for ways forward

Participants recommended several actions to support a shift to more resilient fisheries. For the purposes of this executive summary, they have been broadly characterized according to 3 categories:

1. Improve fisheries management for greater ecosystem protection and sustainable development;
2. Enhance data availability, transparency and strategic planning capacity to support modernized fisheries; and,
3. Support an adaptive and climate-ready fishing industry.

Improve fisheries management for greater ecosystem protection and sustainable development

• Ecosystem approach: Participants recommended a move away from single-species management to an ecosystem approach. Many indicated the need to consider species interactions—like predator-prey relationships—alongside social, cultural, and economic factors to support the long-term viability and resilience of fisheries.
• Empower Indigenous communities: Participants placed emphasis was placed on recognizing the importance of IK and supporting Indigenous self-governance in fisheries management. Co-management models, and additional opportunities for Indigenous communities to actively participate in decision-making, science activities, and priority setting were viewed as effective strategies for supporting adaptation. Strengthening Indigenous leadership and fostering collaboration in these areas was identified as a crucial step toward achieving more effective and sustainable adaptation outcomes.
• Pursue innovative solutions: Participants raised that given the current uncertainty and rate of change, it is crucial to support the exploration of bold, innovative, and collaborative solutions within DFO and across sectors.

Enhance data availability, transparency and strategic planning capacity to support modernized fisheries

• Science activities and data collection: To support climate-informed fisheries management, participants recommended standardizing data collection, identifying gaps, establishing baselines, setting priorities to triage work, developing social and economic indicators, focusing on proactive solutions, and integrating climate change considerations into management decisions. Additionally, data should be readily available and shared.
• Recognize Indigenous and harvester knowledge: Participants would like to see the integration of local expertise into existing processes. Participants emphasized the need to integrate IK and the lived experiences of Indigenous harvesters into DFO’s science and decision-making, recognizing IK as foundational and equally valuable as Western science for sustainable fisheries management. There was also recognition that non-Indigenous harvesters and industry participants living and working on the water have valuable insights and knowledge to share as they are often the first to observe changes. Their expertise should also be acknowledged and considered.
• Forward planning activities and capacity building: Participants highlighted the need for forward planning and capacity building through inclusive, action-focused discussions that foster collaboration, generate solutions, and ensure long-term relevance in climate adaptation efforts. The utility of collaborative scenario planning or ‘foresighting’ exercises to increase predictive capacity and identify agreed upon fisheries management outcomes was raised repeatedly.
• Collaboration, transparency, and communication: Participants noted that collaboration, transparency, and communication are critical to building trust and relationships. To strengthen climate adaptation, it is important to increase collaboration with Indigenous communities and harvesters, while also improving the transparency of decision-making processes. Timely and accessible communication should be ensured, alongside the facilitation of resource sharing across sectors. Research and climate risk information must be clear, accessible, and reflect the intended audience.

Support an adaptive and climate-ready fishing industry

• Legislative, regulatory and/or policy reviews: These were identified as critical steps to enhance the ability of harvesters and fisheries managers to be flexible in response to rapid environmental and industry changes.
• Funding opportunities: Participants wish to see the development of more flexible, inclusive, and accessible funding mechanisms (e.g., grants and contributions) tailored to local needs and all resource users, including disaster funds and fisheries loan boards.
• Establish a mechanism for further discussions: Participants expressed a strong interest in ongoing, action-oriented climate change adaptation discussions that are collaborative, inclusive of all sectors, recurring within existing committees or new working groups, and focused on interactive engagement rather than one-way information sharing.
• Education: Participants highlighted the desire to engage in public awareness campaigns emphasizing climate change impacts on fisheries, the shared responsibility for adaptation efforts, and the vital role of fisheries in food security and its importance as a natural resource industry.

Conclusion

Climate change was widely seen as a major issue impacting all sectors. Participants felt that one of the most effective ways to support the resilience and long-term viability of Canada’s fisheries and coastal communities is through working together to share and develop solutions that benefit the maximum number of users.

Overall, there was a sense of urgency among participants for DFO to take action, and a recognition that while there continues to be gaps, there is enough data available to begin making progress on adaptation. Many participants noted that the current unpredictability, combined with the absence of a stated long-term vision and defined objectives for the future of Canada’s fisheries from DFO, impacts their ability to plan and leaves them unsure of what steps to take to better prepare.

Participants repeatedly emphasized the importance of shifting the current fisheries management regime from reactive to proactive decision-making, building capacity for adapting and future planning, and expressed a desire to have a role in shaping the future of their livelihoods, cultures, and traditions.

Report

Context

In November 2023, DFO hosted a workshop entitled Adapting Canadian Fisheries to a Changing Climate. Invitees represented Indigenous organizations and governments, and key stakeholders operating primarily at a national level. The workshop supported small group discussions focused on climate impacts on fisheries, adaptation barriers and needs, and ways of building resilience in Canada’s marine wild-capture fisheries.

Over the duration of the workshop it was strongly recommended that DFO continue the conversation, and host similar workshops at the regional level, to better understand the varying climate impacts and considerations across Canada’s three coasts. In response, DFO organized a series of seven region-specific workshops.

Regional workshops

The regional workshops were held from May 31, 2024, to December 4, 2024, and largely followed the structure, composition, and discussion topics of the national workshop. Similar to the national workshop, the regional sessions were intended to be a listening exercise and an important step towards recognizing the challenges posed by climate change to fisheries. The breakdown was as follows:

• May 31, 2024: Adapting British Columbia’s fisheries to a changing climate
• October 30, 2024: Adapting Maritimes fisheries to a changing climate
• November 7, 2024: Adapting northern fisheries (Northwest Territories, Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Yukon) to a changing climate
• November 14, 2024: Adapting eastern Arctic fisheries (Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik and James Bay) to a changing climate
• November 27, 2024: Adapting Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) fisheries to a changing climate
• December 2, 2024: Adapting Gulf fisheries to a changing climate
• December 4, 2024: Adapting Quebec fisheries to a changing climate

Overview of the workshops

The objectives of the regional workshops were to:

• Provide an opportunity for participants to come together to share experiences and perspectives on climate change impacts, adaptation actions, and the future of fisheries under climate change;
• Build a broader understanding of the impacts of climate change on wild-capture fisheries; and,
• Identify barriers and opportunities for adaptation action, now and into the future.

The workshops provided a platform where Indigenous organization and governments, commercial and recreational harvesters, environmental non-governmental organizations, provincial and territorial governments, and academic leaders could come together to discuss climate change impacts and potential adaptation measures within wild-capture fisheries managed or co-managed by DFO.

Despite efforts to promote participation, several invitees were unable to attend, often due to logistical barriers such as scheduling conflicts or limited capacity within their organizations. Some organizations, particularly those directly involved in fisheries, may not have attended due to consultation fatigue, as they are frequently asked to engage in numerous meetings during their off-season. Additionally, several participants noted that in-person meetings are generally preferred by harvesters. It was suggested that holding the workshops in-person may have improved attendance among those directly involved in fisheries.

Regional what we heard reports

The regional what we heard (WWH) reports were drafted to reflect the main discussion points as raised by participants as much as possible. Adjustments were made to the agenda from one workshop to the next, which explains some variance in the content of the reports. The WWH reports also include the results of a survey and written input from web-based mural boards when these tools were used. Additional input received via the online feedback survey was also considered in the writing of these reports, which can be found as separate chapters within this report.

Summary analysis

The following provides an overview of the common themes and differences from the seven regional workshops. This section is not an exhaustive analysis of all feedback but draws from the most common responses to questions that were asked across all the workshops. While more detailed, the input from these regional workshops was consistent with the themes raised in the November 2023 national workshop.

Impacts of the changing climate and areas of significant concern

Participants identified current impacts of climate change in their respective regions and, in many cases, highlighted their biggest areas of concern. The key themes which emerged from this discussion and the most frequently raised points are reflected below.

Shifts in species distribution, migration patterns, population abundance, productivity and lifecycles

• Observations of geographic shifts in species distribution were reported in all seven workshops, with these changes mainly linked to a broad range of environmental factors such as warming water temperatures, shifting currents, reductions in snowpack and sea ice, thawing permafrost, fluctuating and/or low levels of water.
• Harvesters also noted changes in the lifecycles of various species, sometimes affecting their population abundances, productivity, and seasonality, which are not always aligning with DFO’s harvesting season dates.
• Not all regions noted the same level of impacts, or consistent effects on the same species. Across Atlantic Canada, participants noted many species moving northward, causing concerns of declines in many native populations.
• In Quebec, participants reported some new predatory species, which are changing predator-prey relationships and affecting the whole ecosystem.
• Environmental changes are also influencing marine mammals and altering predation patterns. For example, participants in the Gulf region reported an increase in the presence of sharks and whales due to changes in migration patterns, the latter causing fishery closures and requiring gear changes.

Invasive species

Invasive species were noted as becoming increasingly common across all three coasts as ocean temperatures warm and species move to either follow or escape temperature changes. For example:

• Green crab and Pancake Batter Tunicate (Sea Vomit) are being seen more in the Maritimes region.
• Participants in the northern fisheries workshop reported the rise of invasive species, and the northward expansion of some species into areas where they are not native. A prominent example of this are North American beavers, who have expanded into the Arctic and are building dams that are blocking fish migration.
• Participants in British Columbia fisheries reported seeing higher levels of invasive species such as Pacific oysters, and a rise in sea lice outbreaks.

Fish health

• Significant concerns were raised regarding fish health, particularly among participants in the British Columbia workshop, and the northern and eastern Arctic workshops.
• Participants noted signs of disease and poor reproduction rates among some species. In particular, fish health was noted as a concern among salmon populations, due to warming waters and changes in river conditions.
• Others reported more diseases and noticeable changes to the colour and texture of the flesh of some species (e.g., Arctic char).

Changing weather patterns

• We heard that increases in storm frequency and intensity, shifting wind patterns, and changes in sea ice (freeze/thaw cycles and thickness) are major safety concerns for harvesters. These issues were especially raised by participants in the Atlantic, Quebec, northern and eastern Arctic workshops.
• In Quebec, participants explained that the safety concerns for harvesters and the uncertainty about changing weather patterns were also weighing heavily on harvesters’ mental health.
• In British Columbia, participants shared concerns over increases in climate-driven weather events such as heat domes, flooding, and landslides.
• These weather changes are also impacting the predictability of harvesting seasons (e.g., timing and length) and can have impacts on bycatch levels (e.g., higher bycatch with longer seasons). Warming waters and changes to sea ice were frequently mentioned in connection to shifts in the timing of harvesting seasons.

On a broader scale, participants expressed concerns about the economic and cultural impacts of climate change. For example, participants in British Columbia raised concerns over financial challenges caused by fishery closures, while others spoke of threats to culturally important species, traditional harvesting practices, and food security. In Quebec, participants were worried about the effects of climate change on communities that rely heavily on the harvesting sector. Participants in Newfoundland and Labrador and the eastern Arctic noted that some climate impacts may be positive, such as the possibility of opening or expanding new fisheries and improving food security.

All workshops highlighted the expectation that managing fisheries will become more complicated. Many comments focused on how climate change is making it harder for the current fisheries management regime to keep pace. These issues will be expanded on in the section on barriers; however, they largely pointed to a mismatch between the rapid impacts of climate change requiring quick responses, and the slow, rigid fisheries management processes that currently exist.

Lastly, some participants expressed a degree of uncertainty about whether the changes they are seeing are specifically caused by climate change, citing a lack of long-term data to support that position. However, there was recognition among these participants that noticeable changes are occurring, regardless of the cause.

Adaptation actions underway

Participants shared some of the individual or collective actions that they and/or their organizations are taking to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Research, monitoring and data collection

• We heard from participants that they and/or their organizations are focusing their efforts on research, monitoring, and data collection. For example, participants in British Columbia reported tracking water samples, phytoplankton, and fish stocks.
• Participants also emphasized the importance of standardized data collection in responding faster to climate impacts. For example, participants in the northern fisheries workshop identified this is an area of focus in some of their work.
• Some participants in the Maritimes region mentioned enhancing data collection and research efforts using technology, such as satellite telemetry and artificial intelligence.
• In the Gulf region, participants reported conducting whale occurrence modelling.

New technologies and methods

Participants highlighted the potential of new technologies and ways of ‘doing business.’ For example:

• In British Columbia, harvesters are adapting fishing gear to account for shifts in bait availability.
• Harvesters operating in the eastern Arctic are using excluder devices to reduce the number of Greenland shark caught as bycatch.
• Oceans North, an ENGO, has led the development of the Climate Risk Index for Biodiversity; a tool which can be used to predict how fish species in specific areas will be affected by climate impacts.
• Participants in several workshops touched on efforts to diversify fisheries and licence holdings, develop tools for safer fishing practices, explore alternative harvesting methods to reduce environmental impacts and minimize bycatch, and experiment with, and/or adopt, new fishing gear. Examples included ropeless gear and new trawling technologies.
• Some harvesters also reported looking into electric or low emission vessels.

Partnerships, communication, and education

• Several participants noted actively advocating for co-management processes and consideration of IK as part of climate change adaptation in fisheries.
• Participants largely recognized the interconnectedness of all resource users in the fisheries sector and the importance of working together to find common solutions. Participants reported a desire to work together, share resources, and exchange information across regions, sectors and organizations.
  • For example, participants in the eastern Arctic and northern fisheries workshops reported numerous community-level actions, including ones focused largely on increasing communication processes to support the sharing of information.
  • Participants in Newfoundland and Labrador promoted transdisciplinary research involving all user groups as a way to break down silos and reduce overlapping initiatives.
• Others reported an interest in pursuing more learning and training opportunities at the community level.

Planning and logistics

• Some participants described their involvement in planning activities, such as developing risk assessments and creating climate resilience and/or adaptation plans.
• Others mentioned taking more immediate, practical steps to adapt to changing conditions. For example, adjusting harvest times to as early as possible within a season or adjusting boating practices due to shallower rivers (low water levels).

Barriers to adaptation

Participants discussed the most common barriers to adaptation. Many comments focused on the lack of accessible funding to expand on research and better support harvesters and communities to adapt to climate change.

Funding supports

• Overall, participants reported that current funding programs (e.g., grants and contributions) could benefit from increased flexibility and better alignment with the needs of harvesters.
• More funding was said to be needed to mitigate the high costs of:
  • Transitioning to new fisheries (e.g., new gear requirements).
  • Greening existing fisheries (e.g., electrification of the lobster fleet).
  • Testing technologies such as mitigation tools. For example, the excluder devices used to reduce bycatch of Greenland shark in the eastern Arctic and ropeless gear to reduce impacts on North Atlantic right whales.
• We heard from participants who attended the northern fisheries workshop identified a need for enhanced funding and capacity to support habitat restoration and policy efforts.
• Participants in Quebec emphasized the need for more financing initiatives for new entrants, especially given the high market price for certain licenses, thus limiting their access to the sector.
• Participants also requested greater transparency in funding: who receives it and how it is allocated.

Science and data

• Participants highlighted the importance of strengthening data collection and scientific capacity to support informed fisheries management. In particular, they noted gaps in baseline and forward-looking data needed for tracking changes over time and planning. A number of participants also emphasized the need to prioritize core scientific work such as stock assessments and habitat mapping, which they felt have not kept pace with current needs.
• Insufficient funding (e.g., budget cuts) combined with competing or unclear priorities were typically identified as the root cause of these gaps.
• Some participants expressed that a lack of longer-term data collection makes it difficult to know what changes are due to climate change versus other factors, highlighting a need for improved baseline data. In a few regions, people were reluctant to link changes directly to climate impacts without having long-term data available.
• Participants highlighted an opportunity for DFO to consider more social, economic, and cultural factors alongside empirical data and science. Many felt that the ability to consistently consider variables beyond physical science would enable DFO to adopt a more holistic approach to supporting fisheries and coastal communities.
• Participants widely reported that an increased amount of data and scientific information would allow them to better understand the current state of fisheries, and to anticipate what is coming and make informed plans.
• Many participants felt that more projections related to climate impacts, predator-prey relationships, and species movements are needed, and noted that the increased data would allow for these projections to be better communicated outside of government.
• Participants emphasized the importance of proactively looking ahead to what data will be needed in the future to support informed decision-making (e.g., tracking the arrival of new species).

Infrastructure

• Participants expressed concerns about whether the current fishing infrastructure is ready to meet future needs. Specifically, harbours:
  • Must have the capacity to accommodate greener fleets (e.g., by providing electric charging stations).
  • Need to be climate ready, meaning they can withstand increasingly severe and frequent storms, changes in water levels and shifting sea ice conditions.
  • Should be expanded and strategically located to support growth in emerging areas.
• It was also noted that the lack of food-processing facilities in the eastern Arctic is a major barrier for Inuit participation in some fisheries.

Current fisheries management regime

Participants identified areas in which DFO could improve the current fisheries management regime. Participants noted areas in which DFO could improve the flexibility and speed of management decisions. For example:

• In British Columbia, participants observed that the single-species approach to fisheries management is too rigid to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
• Similar feelings were expressed in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the current system was seen as being improved by increasing flexibility and speed in decision-making to respond more quickly to changing conditions.
• Harvesters in the Maritimes region cited rigid regulations mandating fishing times and gear types, along with slow regulatory processes, as significant barriers.
• In Quebec region, participants called for more adaptable rules, particularly around licensing, bycatch, simultaneous fisheries, and fishing seasons.

Organizational structure

• Participants in several workshops expressed concerns about coordination challenges within DFO — across sectors and regions, and with other federal departments and jurisdictions — which they attributed to what they perceived as a siloed organizational structure.
• Participants expressed that improved coordination would result in faster response times, increase opportunities for collaboration and small-scale actions, enabling a more comprehensive approach to fisheries management.

Inclusivity and Indigenous involvement

• Participants emphasized that more work is needed to fully recognize and respect Indigenous rights and IK in fisheries management. This could include fostering better collaboration and representation of Indigenous Peoples and IK in science and decision-making processes.
• Co-management and co-development approaches, where Indigenous communities play a central role in decision-making, were seen as critical for effective adaptation strategies.

Transparency, collaboration and communication

• All three elements are closely tied to building trust, not only between DFO and resource users, but also among the users themselves.
• Many felt that DFO could more consistently share scientific research and clearly explain how decisions are made for those who fed into the research efforts and/or shared their knowledge.
• Participants in Newfoundland and Labrador described that improvements could be made to ensure consistency in how DFO collects and uses data by regularly accepting data from harvesters to avoid confusion and frustration.
• Participants recognized the need for better collaboration and information sharing between government departments, Indigenous groups, the harvesting industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, academia, and local communities.
• They expressed the need to communicate using clear, plain language, and information should be presented in a way that is accessible and easily understood by the intended audience.
• They would like additional efforts to be made to increase the awareness and understanding of climate change impacts both among resource users and the general public, particularly in coastal communities.

Looking to the future

Participants identified some of the individual and collective actions they thought were needed to support adaptation efforts, and ultimately, the resilience of fisheries and coastal communities.

Funding opportunities

Participants highlighted the need for greater financial support to adapt to changing conditions, invest in sustainable practices, and modernize their operations. Below are some examples of recommended actions:

• Improve or create new funding streams across levels of government that are more flexible, accessible for all resource users, and responsive to local needs.
• In British Columbia, participants suggested the creation of new funding mechanisms, such as a dedicated disaster relief fund and a fisheries loan board.
• In Quebec region, participants recommended changes to licensing policies and financial incentives to make it easier for new entrants to access the sector.
• In Gulf region, we heard a desire for expanding access to inclusive funding programs that help cover the high costs of adaptation for all resource users.

Collaboration and communication

Collaboration and communication was a strong and consistent theme across all workshops. Participants called for increased collaboration between DFO, Indigenous communities and organizations, industry, fisheries organizations, and harvesters to support more effective climate adaptation efforts. Some of the suggested actions include:

• Establishing ways to share resources across different sectors, regions, levels of government, and organizations to strengthen collective resilience, which requires trust and open communication about goals and expectations.
• Improving DFO’s communication with Indigenous communities, harvesters, industries, and fisheries organizations for research, management decisions, policy development, and scientific information.
• Ensuring that research findings are communicated back to communities and research participants in a way that clearly highlights the purpose of the research and the practical application of results.
• Presenting all information using plain language and providing translations where needed to improve accessibility.
• Communicating both short- and long-term climate risks, while also developing strategies to manage these risks effectively.
• Launching a public awareness campaign to improve education on how climate change affects fisheries, highlighting the shared responsibility for adaptation across all sectors, and the importance of fisheries as a natural resource and vital source of food security.

Forward planning and capacity building

• Participants frequently emphasized the challenges posed by the pace of environmental change and the unpredictability of its impacts. At the Newfoundland and Labrador workshop, there was particular concern about the year-to-year variability in fisheries and around how environmental shifts are influencing fish stocks and ecosystems. It was noted that these factors are making it increasingly difficult for both fisheries managers and resource users to plan ahead.
• There was a strong call for increased capacity across all sectors—industry, government, and environmental organizations—to effectively engage in climate change adaptation. Participants stressed the importance of building knowledge, tools, and resources to support proactive and informed decision-making.
• In the Quebec region workshop, participants underscored the importance of diversifying markets for existing fisheries and finding ways to make better use of bycatch. They also recommended shifting away from volume-based harvesting and instead placing a greater focus on product quality as a means of increasing resilience and value.

Continued discussions

• Overall, there was a desire to continue having discussions on climate change adaptation. Participants highlighted a few common characteristics that should shape future discussions.
  • Make climate adaptation discussions a regular item on existing advisory and/or management committee agendas.
  • DFO could consider establishing a climate change working group focused on mixed-table discussions (members from across sectors).
  • Include all sectors in discussions to increase collaboration, build relationships and identify shared solutions.
  • Regardless of format, adopt a more interactive approach that supports open discussions, debate, and brainstorming, rather than one-way communication from DFO to participants; which was noted as increasingly common.
  • Participants also stated that in-person discussions would be even more beneficial than virtual-only formats.
• Importantly, it was noted across several workshops that any future working groups must be action oriented. To stay relevant, these groups should focus on concrete outcomes, such as developing an action plan or setting clear priorities.

Innovative thinking

Participants emphasized the necessity to be bold, and to look to new solutions, ideas, and ways of operating. They expressed that as climate change impacts all sectors, DFO and all implicated partners should seek opportunities to work together and be willing to take risks — even if that means some efforts might not succeed. Areas of exploration could include:

• Exploring innovative solutions to help adapt to funding limitations.
• Using alternative data collection methods, such as drones for remote or low-access fisheries.
• Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze existing data and predict trends in data-scarce fisheries.

Integration of Indigenous and harvester knowledge

• Participants highlighted the importance of meaningfully and consistently integrating IK, and the lived experiences of all harvesters into DFO’s science and decision-making processes. Participants emphasized that the insights of those who live and work closely with the environment are essential for informed, responsive, and sustainable fisheries management. Numerous participants called for IK to be recognized and used alongside Western science. IK is rooted in generations of experience and deep connections to land, water, and ecosystems. Participants felt that it should be treated as foundational rather than supplementary in DFO research and management.
• Some participants suggested specific actions as a way to move forward. For example, in the eastern Arctic workshop participants recommended that DFO:
  • Look to international models that demonstrate successful integration of IK into fisheries science and policy.
• Engage Inuit partners early in the research process, including in the creation of research questions and hypotheses. Many stakeholders highlighted the value of commercial harvester knowledge and its role in research and decision-making. They noted that harvesters can provide critical insights and early observations of environmental changes.
• Participants shared that many commercial harvesters are eager to share their on-the-water knowledge and real-time observations with DFO to support decision-making and more responsive fisheries management. They emphasized the need for a clear and accessible mechanismto ensure this information can be gathered, valued, and integrated effectively.

Science activities and data collection

To support climate-resilient fisheries management, the following science activities and data collection efforts were recommended:

• Standardize data collection to respond faster to climate impacts.
• Conduct a gap analysis and baseline analysis, followed by a prioritization exercise to determine areas of focus.
• Develop measurable social, cultural, and economic indicators to enable a more holistic understanding of fisheries and the Indigenous and coastal communities they contribute to.
• Focus on activities that will support predictive capacity and future decision making. For example, prioritize the assessment of redfish abundance, which are becoming increasingly present in many areas, including the eastern Arctic.
• Incorporate climate change indicators into robust stock assessments and reflect climate data in management decisions.

Fisheries management

• Overall, there was a desire for proactive and flexible fisheries management approaches to support harvesters, industry, and their communities in a time of uncertainty and rapid change.
• Participants also wanted to see better use of an ecosystem approach for fisheries management, taking species interactions and environmental conditions into account to protect ecosystem productivity in a sustainable way.
• Across all workshops, participants cited a need for increased regulatory, policy and licensing flexibilities that will support DFO and harvesters’ capacity to respond to rapidly changing conditions – in particular, the capacity for quick decision-making and adaptive responses as new circumstances develop. Participants provided specific suggestions for both increasing responsiveness, and the future direction of fisheries. While more details are provided in the regional reports, some examples include:
  • Increasing responsive capacity
    • Diversify license portfolios and explore new economic opportunities, including adding value to bycatch fisheries.
    • Look ahead to harvesting opportunities for emerging species in Canadian waters and for existing fisheries moving into new areas.
    • Evaluate the current licensing regimes given the changes in species distribution (e.g., northward migration of lobster).
    • Revise quota management for better adaptability.
    • Explore policy and licensing flexibilities to reduce harvester costs and impacts, such as buddy up systems and shared or community-based licences.
  • Future directions
    • Move away from single species management and implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, consistent with public commitments.
    • Require the integration of climate change data into all fisheries management decisions.
    • Enhance local capacity for resource monitoring and knowledge application.
    • Establishing mechanisms to integrate and support local expertise in management. This could include revamping advisory committee meetings to support more effective information sharing and discussion or holding workshops outside of industry-DFO advisory committee meetings, which could help reduce red tape.
    • Move towards a stronger focus on habitat restoration and biodiversity.
    • Proactive planning. Engage in future planning activities such as scenario planning (or ‘foresighting’) to prepare for anticipated future changes and increase predictability for harvesters.

Conclusion

The workshops brought together Indigenous organizations and governments, along with key fishery stakeholders, to discuss the challenges posed by climate change. The insights shared during these events have contributed to DFO’s understanding of how climate change is affecting resource users on each coast. Participants from diverse sectors and communities expressed a strong interest in continuing to engage on these issues, highlighting the value of ongoing dialogue and coordinated action.