department of fisheries and oceans

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Fall 2005 Consultations:

Pacific Fisheries Reform

The Integrated Groundfish Proposal

Proposed Rockfish Conservation Areas for the Strait of Georgia

Implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy

Fisheries Act Renewal

Proposed SARA Listings

Summary of Comment:

Multi-Interest Dialogue Sessions

Public Open Houses

Prepared for:

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Consultation Secretariat Policy Branch Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region 200-401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3S4

Prepared by:

Chris Hoffman Norton-Arnold & Company 1932 First Avenue, Suite 802 Seattle, WA 98101 January 19, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................................................................1

Consultation Overview..............................................................................6 Process Summary....................................................................................................6

Table 1: Consultation Summary...............................................................7 Figure 1: Stakeholder Participation Summary.............................................8

Report Format ........................................................................................................8

Pacific Fisheries Reform ........................................................................10 Overview...............................................................................................................10 Comment Summary...............................................................................................10

Harvest Sharing ................................................................................ 10 Table 2: Positive and Negative Attributes of Individual Quotas ....................... 11 Licensing ........................................................................................ 12 Transferability.................................................................................. 14 Co-management................................................................................. 15

Key Findings.........................................................................................................18

Integrated Groundfish Proposal..............................................................20 Overview...............................................................................................................20 Comment Summary...............................................................................................20

Rockfish Conservation Areas..................................................................22 Overview...............................................................................................................22 Comment Summary...............................................................................................22

Outreach ......................................................................................... 22 Data .............................................................................................. 23 Impacts on Rockfish ........................................................................... 23 Proposed Areas ................................................................................. 23 General RCA Comments and Questions .................................................... 23

Wild Salmon Policy................................................................................24 Comment Summary...............................................................................................24

Fisheries Act Renewal............................................................................26 Comment Summary...............................................................................................26

Proposed New Listings............................................................................28 Overview...............................................................................................................28

Bering Cisco..................................................................................... 28

Recommendations .................................................................................30 Continue Consultations..........................................................................................30 Proactively Manage Issues.....................................................................................31

Appendix A: Fisheries Reform Discussion Guide .....................................33

Executive Summary In October and November 2005, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) conducted a series of multi-interest dialogue sessions and open houses with the public throughout British Columbia concerning:

• Pacific Fisheries Reform • The Integrated Groundfish Proposal • Proposed Rockfish Conservation Areas for the Strait of Georgia • Implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy • Fisheries Act Renewal • Proposed SARA Listings • Draft Recovery Strategies for Stickleback Species Pairs, Nooksack Dace and Salish

Sucker The meetings’ purposes were:

• To discuss the issues and options for fisheries reform and engage participants in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of reform options

• To present the industry-led proposal to integrate groundfish fisheries and receive input on the merits of that proposal

• To explain the rationale and distribution of proposed Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) and solicit input

• To describe the development of the Wild Salmon Policy and present plans for short- and long-term implementation

• To present the process and key elements of Fisheries Act renewal and identify questions and concerns regarding renewal, and

• To present information about the proposed SARA listings and receive comments on those listings.

Comment summaries and specific comments represent the views of session participants; they do not represent the views of the DFO staff or the authors of this report. The key findings and recommendations are a result of internal analysis and are presented by the authors of this report for consideration by the DFO. Pacific Fisheries Reform Pacific Fisheries Reform was presented and discussed at all six multi-interest dialogue sessions and open houses. Information was presented on four key elements of fisheries reform:

• Harvest sharing • Commercial licensing • Transferability • Co-management

DFO Fall 2005 Consultations Final Report 1

Participants made extensive comments on the four key elements of reform. On Harvest Sharing, the discussion focused on the pros and cons of individual quotas. The discussion revealed a number of positive attributes of quotas, including greater certainty and flexibility, an emphasis on quality over quantity, and improved conservation. However, participants also identified negative attributes including driving up the price of licences and consolidating the fishery into a few hands. There was also concern that implementing quotas in the Pacific salmon fishery would be problematic given the migratory nature of fish.

Licensing, like the duration of licenses or who held the license were not as controversial as quotas and transferability. The discussion revealed that many fishermen perceive that they have certainty currently with annual licenses, but most participants agreed that making licences long-term has benefits to fishermen – to allow them to plan better and secure financing for their operations.

On Transferability, there were different opinions. In general, those in favor of transferability also favored quotas, and saw the two as closely linked. They said flexibility and increasing access to fish were its main attributes. Those opposed to it said it would inflate the price of licences and could impact future First Nations access, coastal communities and fishing related employment.

There was general support for the concept of co-management. However, most said that it needs to be better defined, that many forms of co-management could occur, and that the DFO should not expect all co-managers to pay in order to participate.

Participants at all sessions stated clearly that fisheries reform is only part of an overall solution for the sustainable management of the resource. They said that no management system would “save the fishery” and that the DFO needs to apply more resources to and exert more authority over habitat and the need to address the impacts of aquaculture. Further many felt that the DFO needs to develop mechanisms to assess stocks and implement fisheries while conserving weak stocks and listed species. In this regard, financial compensation was suggested by many in the commercial salmon fishery who have been particularly affected by restrictive fisheries aimed at protecting stocks of concern.

Integrated Groundfish Proposal The Draft Integrated Groundfish Proposal was presented and discussed at the Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Port Hardy, and Nanaimo dialogue sessions and open houses. DFO staff outlined the 18 month process to develop the draft proposal, and highlighted the proposal’s key elements. Participant comments indicated support for the proposal and the fact that is was developed in partnership with the fishing industry. Areas of concern with the proposal included all interests not being represented on the Commercial Industry Caucus, the cost to fishermen for implementing the monitoring component of the proposal, and the formula that will be used to determine allocation of quota.


Rockfish Conservation Areas Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) were presented at dialogue sessions and open houses in Nanaimo, Port Hardy and Vancouver. Additional meetings that were not a part of the multi-issue process were held in Sechelt, Powell River, Mayne Island, Saltspring Island, Saturna Island and Campbell River. DFO biologists presented a strategy for sustaining rockfish that designates 30% of fishing areas in the Strait of Georgia as conservation areas. Participants’ comments indicated that there was concern about the extent of the outreach the DFO has done to inform people about the proposed RCAs, the accuracy of the data used to make decisions on the proposed RCAs, and about other significant impacts on rockfish, such as aquaculture, that the RCAs won’t help to address.

Wild Salmon Policy The Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) was presented and discussed at all six of the dialogue sessions and open houses. DFO staff presented the key elements of the WSP and provided the framework and timeline for its implementation. In general, participants supported the policy but had a number of concerns about its implementation, including: if the DFO has the resources and necessary funding to implement the WSP; the apparent conflict between the DFO’s support of aquaculture and its desire to conserve wild Pacific salmon; and the ability and willingness of the DFO to consider and act on the full range of options (beyond closing fisheries) to conserve salmon.

Fisheries Act Renewal The Fisheries Act Renewal was presented and discussed at all six of the dialogue sessions and open houses. DFO staff provided an overview of the current act, the need for renewing it, and the key elements being considered for renewal. In general, participants were highly critical of the consultation process on this topic. They said they could not be expected to provide input to the Act’s renewal without the benefit of the proposed language, and were doubtful that they would have a real voice in the renewal process.

Proposed New SARA Listings The DFO presented information on proposed new listings at all open houses and at the Whitehorse dialogue session. The five species that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) proposes for formal listing under SARA are the North Pacific Right Whale (Endangered), Fin Whale (Threatened), Green Sturgeon (Special Concern) and Bering Cisco (Special Concern). Participants made comments about the Bering Cisco, and indicated that the criteria used as the basis for listing – dams and increased harvest – are not planned for, and unlikely to occur. A number of participants cited considerable data gaps and said that the Bering Cisco should be identified as data deficient.

Draft Recovery Strategies The DFO provided the opportunity to comment on draft recovery strategies for Nooksack Dace at the Nanaimo session; however no-one attended this session. Two separate sessions were also held for Salish Sucker (Sechelt) and Abbotsford (Stickleback Species Pairs).


Key Findings The following represent a summary of the key findings that resulted from a content analysis of all discussions held on fisheries reform:

1. There is mixed support for individual quotas: The theme of flexibility ran through all discussions on all reform elements at all locations. There was mixed support for individual quotas; participants who supported them generally have had some experience with them. Those who supported IQs clearly stated that fishery participants need to be involved in developing any new harvest sharing system. It was clear that they believed that there is no “one size fits all” approach, and that whatever system is selected needs to be flexible to accommodate the needs of the fishery.

2. Transferability is tied to harvest sharing: Participants had a difficult time separating the elements of reform from one another. This was especially evident when discussing harvest sharing and transferability. It was clear that those who supported IQs also supported transferability and that for transferability to work it had to be part of an IQ system for harvest sharing.

3. Licence conditions and duration are of secondary importance: The topic of licensing generated the least amount of input and controversy. There was general support for long-term certainty and the ability to borrow money from banks. However, there were mixed views on the degree to which license duration affected borrowing power. Participants clearly said that vessel length and gear restrictions should not be tied to licences. Many participants said removing the licence from the boat (to a person or corporation) would simplify the current situation and provide needed flexibility. A smaller number of participants believed an owner-operator provision is the only way to ensure fishing benefits are realized in coastal communities and by smaller fishing operations.

4. Co-management can take many forms: There was a great deal of support for the concept of co-management. It was also evident that there is both mistrust for the DFO and a lack of understanding of what co-management really means. In participants’ eyes, it must be a genuine partnership with the DFO and can build on a variety of existing processes. It was clear that there are many fishery participants who do not feel that they have the capacity to contribute financially to fisheries management; individual co-management groups should address the “who should pay” question on their own.

5. There are other issues that the DFO needs to proactively manage: A broad range of interests at all sessions raised a number other issues, specifically aquaculture, conservation, land use impacts, and weak stock management. On these issues, it was clear that many participants did not believe the DFO was doing an adequate job of managing or communicating their positions.


Recommendations As a result of conducting these consultations, the following recommendations are offered as a means to build upon and improve consultations.

Recommendation #1: Continue and build upon targeted efforts to engage First Nations and stakeholders by invitation, and increase efforts to engage stakeholders who have not traditionally participated.

Recommendation #2: Continue to seek out opportunities to consult with First Nations and stakeholders in a multi-issue format.

Recommendation #3: Continue to seek out opportunities to engage groups of First Nations and stakeholders as partners in the exploration and resolution of issues, and include those partners in consultations with a broader range of First Nations and stakeholders.

Recommendation #4: Plan and implement consultation processes that support decision-making in a meaningful and sequential way, and demonstrate that you use the input you receive to make decisions.

Recommendation #5: Develop the appropriate partnerships and plans in order to communicate accurate and timely information on key issues and to identify specific concerns that can then be addressed in a constructive manner.


Consultation Overview In October and November 2005, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) conducted a series of multi-interest dialogue sessions and open houses throughout British Columbia to provide information and receive input on:

• Pacific Fisheries Reform: Proposed changes for fisheries in BC and the Yukon • The Integrated Groundfish Proposal: An industry proposal to integrate commercial

groundfish fisheries • Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs): Proposed RCAs for the Strait of Georgia • Wild Salmon Policy: The framework for restoring and maintaining BC’s wild Pacific

salmon • Fisheries Act: Proposed changes • Species at Risk Act (SARA): Six new species proposed for listing under SARA • Species at Risk Recovery Plan: Draft recovery strategies for the Stickleback Species

Pairs, Nooksack Dace and Salish Sucker.

PROCESS SUMMARY The dialogue sessions were typically held over a two-day period from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and consisted of presentations by DFO staff followed by facilitated discussions. Public open houses were typically held from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the day prior to the sessions, and consisted of staffed displays and informal discussions among staff and meeting participants. Table 1 summarizes meeting locations, topics addressed, and number of participants1.

The DFO took a variety of steps to inform First Nations, stakeholders and the public of the sessions and open houses. In summary, the DFO announced the consultation process in late September 2005, with a press release to media throughout British Columbia. Invitation letters, agendas, and meeting materials were mailed to all First Nations in BC, as well as First Nations organizations, tribal councils and fisheries commissions, and to more than 2000 stakeholders, including commercial fishing organizations, recreational fishing and conservation organizations, local governments and stewardship groups. A total of 67 display advertisements, with information about the open houses, were placed in all local newspapers that serve the communities in which the sessions were held. In addition, a number of follow-up telephone calls, emails, and personal communications were made by the DFO to encourage participation.

It is important to note that the consultation requirements with First Nations on significant policy matters are very rigorous and require specific attention. In response to this requirement, the DFO not only engaged First Nations in the public and multi-interest

1 30 people attended the open house held in Sechelt for Salish Sucker (Sechelt) and 1 person attended the open house held in Abbotsford for Stickleback Species Pairs.


processes described in this report but also in a series of seven community meetings with First Nations that were also conducted in November. The DFO will also be following up on a bilateral basis with First Nations who request separate meetings.

Table 1: Consultation Summary

Location Date Type of meeting

Attendee totals

Attendees by category Topics*

Open house 10

Prince Rupert 10/3-10/5 Dialogue session 36

CF – 13; E – 1; FN – 15; G – 1; P – 1; RF – 1; U – 1; UK - 3

Fisheries Reform Fisheries Act Renewal Integrated Groundfish Proposal Wild Salmon Policy

Open house 24

Vancouver 10/11 - 10/13 Dialogue

session 50

CF – 18; E – 9; FN – 9; G – 2; P – 3; RF – 2; U – 4; UK - 3

Fisheries Reform Fisheries Act Renewal Integrated Groundfish Proposal Wild Salmon Policy RCA’s

Open house 8

Port Hardy 10/17 – 10/19 Dialogue

session 36

CF – 18; E – 2; FN – 1; G – 7; P – 2; RF – 3; U – 3; UK - 0

Fisheries Reform Fisheries Act Renewal Integrated Groundfish Proposal Wild Salmon Policy RCA’s

Open house 35

Nanaimo 11/1 – 11/3 Dialogue

session 164

CF – 94; E – 7; FN – 19; G – 13; P – 2; RF – 4; U – 4; UK - 21

Fisheries Reform Fisheries Act Renewal Integrated Groundfish Proposal Wild Salmon Policy RCA’s Draft Recovery Strategies

Open house 4

Kamloops 11/8 & 11/9 Dialogue

session 8

CF – 1; E – 0; FN – 5; G – 0; P – 0; RF – 2; U – 0; UK - 0

Fisheries Reform Fisheries Act Renewal Wild Salmon Policy

Open house 4

Whitehorse 11/14 & 11/15 Dialogue

session 10

CF – 5; E – 1; FN – 2; G – 2; P – 0; RF – 0; U – 0; UK - 0

Fisheries Reform Fisheries Act Renewal Wild Salmon Policy SARA Listings

* Information on Draft Recovery Strategies and Proposed SARA listings was available at all open houses, but was presented at only two dialogue sessions.

Category Key: CF = commercial fisherman, E = ENGO, FN= First Nation, G= government, P = processor, RF = recreational fishermen, U= union, UK= unknown


At each stakeholder session, attendees were asked to sign in and identify the group or organization they were representing. Figure 1 summarizes the participation by each group at all stakeholder sessions.

Figure 1: Stakeholder Participation Summary

Commercial Fisherman

48%

Environmental Non-

Governmental

Organization

7%

First Nation

16%

Government

8%

Processor

3%

Recreational Fishermen

5%

Union

4%

Unknown

9%

REPORT FORMAT This report documents comments received during fall 2005 consultation sessions on the following topics:

• Pacific Fisheries Reform • The Integrated Groundfish Proposal • Proposed Rockfish Conservation Areas for the Strait of Georgia • Implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy • Fisheries Act renewal • Six new species proposed for listing under SARA • Draft recovery strategy for the stickleback2

2 No comments were received on the Draft Recovery Strategy for the Stickleback


The report summarizes the comments received at all sessions and open houses for each topic. Because the consultations focused on fisheries reform, a set of key findings on this topic is presented. The quotes in the right hand column of the report were made by participants at the dialogue sessions. The final section of this report sets forth recommendations derived from the consultation process as a whole. Comment summaries and specific comments represent the views of session participants; they do not represent the views of DFO staff or the authors of this report. The key findings and recommendations are a result of internal analysis and are presented by the authors of this report for the consideration of the DFO.

Minutes from each meeting were recorded and can be received by emailing a request to the DFO via the email address: [email protected]. A hard copy can be requested by calling Jay Hartling, Consultation Secretariat, at (604) 666-7013.


mailto:[email protected]

Pacific Fisheries Reform

OVERVIEW Pacific Fisheries Reform was presented and discussed at all six multi-interest dialogue sessions and open houses. In addition to presenting background information, the DFO staff presented information on four key elements of fisheries reform:

• Harvest sharing • Commercial Licensing • Transferability • Co-management

The Discussion Paper, which is the basis for all presentations, is available on line at: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/ consultations/consultation2005/reform_e.htm. Hard copies are available by calling (250) 756-7192. A discussion guide was used to focus participant input on the key elements of fisheries reform. It is included in Appendix A of this report.

DFO staff will consider comments received through these six sessions, as well as other comments received by December 2, 2005. The DFO will then submit this report and recommendations on how to proceed with fisheries reform to the Minister of the Fisheries and Oceans.

COMMENT SUMMARY Participants made extensive comments on the four key elements of reform. It should be noted that the majority of discussion on reform focused on salmon. Participants at all sessions stated clearly that fisheries reform is only part of an overall solution for the sustainable management of the resource. They said that no management system by itself would “save the fishery.” A number of participants were critical of the DFO on a number of issues, and indicated that the DFO needs to apply more resources to and exert more authority over land use impacts (development, forestry, ranching, agriculture, etc.), more comprehensively address the impacts of aquaculture, increase conservation efforts, and develop mechanisms to assess stocks and implement fisheries while conserving weak stocks and listed species.

“People don’t like change, but the department has to make some hard decisions and stick with them. People

adjust over time.”

Harvest Sharing Participants were asked to provide input on individual quota, community quota, and fleet quota as potential options for harvest


http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/

sharing. They were also asked to suggest additional options for sharing that met the Minister’s vision for reform. By far, discussion focused on the individual quota option.

“We have to figure out how to make money with less

fish, meaning we have to be able to fish cheaper, which is

why we have to go to a quota system. Tell us how

many fish we can have, and then let me decide the most economic way to catch the

fish.”

Regardless of the option, almost all participants agreed that harvest sharing needs to be flexible and simple. Many agreed that one system may not work for all gear types in all areas -- that there needs to be flexibility in harvest sharing to meet the needs of different gear types and different target fisheries. A number of participants said that there are too many fisherman fishing for too few fish and that the number of licences needs to be reduced.

Other comments indicated concern that recreational and First Nations fisheries have not been adequately considered in the allocation equation, and whether or not First Nations and recreational fishermen would have their guaranteed access under a quota system. Some recreational fishermen expressed concern that the DFO has not adequately consulted them, considering a decision will be made on allocation in April or May 2006. From the commercial perspective, some were concerned that recreational fishing was not “paying the same price” as commercial fishermen when it comes to reducing catch to help conserve weak stocks. Some commercial fishermen also expressed concern that recreational catch was not adequately monitored, and that recreational fishermen need to pay a more equitable fee towards fishery conservation and management.

“What makes ITQ fisheries work is the ability to define on a pre-season basis what the quota is going to be. But in salmon there is so much variability that you cannot

define quotas.”

Table 2: Positive and Negative Attributes of Individual QuotasPositive Negative

Higher accountability More emphasis on quality Raises price (not all product brought to market at

once) Improves ability to manage weak stocks Increases ability to plan ahead Greater certainty and flexibility (how much and

where) Greater emphasis on conservation (eliminates

derby) Maximizes the value of the catch Improved safety Ability to fish when you want More mobility to fish where you want Greater accessibility to managers Greater certainty for crews Increases the value of the licence Encourages locally—based fisheries Fosters cooperation among fishermen

Equal split of quota will result in reduced catch for some

Rewards armchair fishermen/ penalizes active fishermen

Creates high profit for some (buying up quota) Redistributes wealth into fewer hands Difficulty for new entrants (high price of licence) Unfair to upriver and gillnet fishermen Will lead to high grading Lower income to deckhands Unknown run sizes make it difficult to administer Ability of fishermen to self-manage allocation Impacts to mixed stock fisheries More costly treaty settlements with First Nations Converts a public resource to a private one Rewards poor fishermen, penalizes good

fishermen


Individual quotas Participants at all meetings focused their discussions on individual quotas. There were strong arguments for and against this system of harvest sharing. There was a great deal of discussion on the pros and cons of individual quotas. Table 2 summarizes the positive and negative attributes of individual quotas.

Community quotas A limited number of participants spoke in favor of community quotas, saying that they would help keep fishing and its economic benefits in coastal communities. In addition, community quotas would ensure that small and family fishing operations had a place in the fishery. Those speaking against community quotas indicated that there was a capacity issue with coastal communities. They said that the task of allocating quotas would be difficult for local governments that are already stretched thin.

Fleet quotas A minority of participants spoke in favor of fleet quotas. Those in favor said that fleet quotas are the best way to ensure the viability of coastal fishing communities. Others said that fleet quotas are not aligned with the individual way fishermen operate, and that fleet and community quotas reduce flexibility because they create another layer of bureaucracy between the regulator and the individual fisherman.

Other harvest sharing options A number of participants indicated that the allocation of fish is not the problem, but that there are too many fishermen and not enough fish. They said that a new system will not solve the problem, and suggested that the DFO should focus on improving the existing system, put more emphasis on salmon conservation and enhancement, and reduce the fleet through buybacks. Other suggestions included putting a cap on the recreational sector’s allocation and increasing commercial access to the fishery.

Licensing Participants were asked to provide their input on licence duration and conditions, and where licenses should reside.

Duration and conditions A number of participants said that they liked the certainty associated with long-term licensing and thought that long-term licences would make it easier to borrow money from banks, and


“Quotas are only successful if you are the owner of the quota. For anyone else – deckhands and those who

lease the quota – the result is decreased income.”

“The licence tenure situation is not broken;

there is no need to have 25-year licences, but

security of licences must be ensured somehow, so that they can be passed on to

future generations.”

“We need flexibility, and fleet and community

quotas don’t give us that. We don’t fish for fun, we

fish for money. I don’t want someone else issuing me my quota because it will become political –

‘you aren’t my friend so you don’t get a licence.’”

more in line with their investments in boats and equipment. However, there was a range of opinions on how that certainty should be achieved. There were a number of participants who supported a 25-year licence; there were also those who assumed the current system had certainty. Some said that 25 years was too long a period for which to plan, and thought that about 8 years was a reasonable period. Some did not see the ability of fishermen to borrow money on a 25-year licence as a benefit, and equated the borrowing of money with propping up the industry. Others said that long-term licences would be easier to administer than annual licence renewals. Some cautioned that licensing reform should not occur until the rest of the reform package is worked out.

A great number of participants said that vessel length and gear restrictions should not be attached to licences. They cited safety concerns and lack of flexibility. They went on to say that these restrictions do not make sense under a quota system since the quota, not the length of a boat or gear type, determines how many fish are caught.

Location of licence – Individual or corporation A number of participants said that licences should not be tied to the boat, and that they should reside with a person or corporation. Those in favor of this provision said that it had the most flexibility – allowing fishermen to get out of the industry when they wanted to, and making it easier for young fishermen to enter the industry. Some said it would also simplify the current situation where there are multiple types of licences.

Location of licence – Owner-operator There were a number of participants who were concerned that removing the vessel from the licensing equation would encourage concentration of licences within a limited number of individuals or corporations. Some said that an owner-operator system of licensing would:

• Help keep jobs and other economic benefits in fishing communities

• Ensure concentration does not occur and would help to maintain community-based fishing fleets

• Maintain the licence as a privilege (rather than an asset) that is passed on to a designated heir


“People within the sector should decide how it works. There shouldn’t be a lot of restrictions, but those with the knowledge

should decide.”

Transferability Participants were asked to: identify what restrictions, if any, should be place on transferring a licence (or quota); explain the purpose of any restrictions; and describe how frequently any restrictions should be revisited. The majority of comments were made based on personal experience with transferability and on the potential consequences of transferability.

Potential consequences A number of participants were in favor of some form of transferability. However, they said that it should be dealt with on a fishery by fishery basis, and that absolute consistency is not necessary on this issue. In general, these commenters identified flexibility as its main attribute, and perceived transferability as an effective means to maximize the potential of the fishery. A summary of the positive consequences of transferability includes:

• The ability to transfer a fishery into areas, such as rivers, that have not traditionally had commercial fisheries.

• Fishing in new areas makes it possible to be more selective and overcome the problem of catching weak stocks in a mixed fishery.

• It would allow fishermen to self-define what makes economic sense – to fish or to lease the right to fish to someone else.

• It would encourage self-regulation of the fishery, which would make it possible for those who do fish to make a living.

• The main problem is not shortage of fish; rather it is lack of access to the fish. Transferability helps to get around the access problem.

• Transferability addresses the major difficulties with the current licence situation. It needs to be easy and allow for flexibility.

However, there were some that had concerns about transferability, especially if it was unlimited. A summary of the negative consequences participants identified includes:

• Inflating the price of licences: that the price of licences would go up and therefore make it impossible for smaller operations to afford them.

• Impacts of moving to terminal fisheries on First Nations: that traditional First Nations' fisheries would be pressured by commercial operations.


• Foreign ownership: a majority of participants wanted to ensure that the resource remains in the hands of the Canadian people.

• The impacts to North Coast fisheries if licences or shares can be transferred from one area to another.

Potential restrictions Some argued that there should be no restrictions; that this element of the fishery would be self-regulating. Others said that certain restrictions were needed. In some cases, a specific restriction was not identified, but there were things mentioned that a potential restriction should help achieve. A summary on potential restrictions includes:

• Transferability should help ensure that older fishermen can get out of the fishery when they want to and that younger fishermen can enter the fishery without having to bear too great a cost.

• A cap on the percentage of quota that one owner can possess would help ensure that transferability does not allow a few to amass the majority of the quota, and help ensure that smaller fishing operations are viable.

• Transferability should be phased in slowly to help the market balance itself out.

Co-management Participants were asked to provide input on who should be involved in co-management, what areas co-managers should be involved with (participants were provided with a list of potential areas – see Appendix A), and who should be responsible for paying for managing those areas.

A great number of participants supported the concept of co-management – the meaningful involvement of stakeholders in sharing accountability and decision-making – and said that moving towards partnership is a move in the right direction, especially in the light of a changing fishery. They tempered their support by saying that sharing has to be done in an evolutionary way; that it will not happen right away, and not without building the trust and capacity of stakeholder groups. Some were concerned that co-management might undermine existing processes and agreements. Some were also concerned that this could be another layer of consultation that might stretch the capacity of existing groups and individuals. When asked to describe what is needed to make co-management work,


participants indicated that co-management must:

• Be given time to work • Be based on equal partnership • Focus on the way forward, not past mistakes • Have the commitment from DFO to listen to its co-managers • Work closely with government • Have representation from all fisheries interests • Operate on a consensus basis • Be a forum for addressing and resolving issues • Have representatives appointed based on their ability to

consider the resource as a whole, and not just the interest they represent

• Be transparent • Encourage communication among all parties • Have access to all data • Effectively and respectfully incorporate local and traditional

knowledge • Begin with clearly stated expectations • Be a “safe place” to give input: ensure that participants know

that their input is being heard and used The DFO should take advantage of existing management bodies, such as the Yukon’s Salmon Committee and the Interior Fraser’s First Nations Regional Co-management Board when implementing co-management. In these examples, coordination of activities was cited as a key element of their success. Broadening these groups to include a more diverse set of interests to coordinate on the right scale would be beneficial. The trick is to determine what the right scale is because fish don’t fit neatly within local or regional sideboards.

A number of participants indicated that there is not currently enough information about co-management; that definitions and parameters need to be developed, and that examples of co-management need to be considered before decisions are made. Other information needs participants identified included:

• How co-managers are selected/groups created • How co-management is integrated into existing advisory

processes

“There are lots of problems with co-

management, but it’s better than the

alternative. We are not replacing a perfect

system so I don’t know why we expect a new system to be perfect.”

• How individual fishermen get a voice in co-management • Who owns the data and products that come out of co-

management arrangements


Some participants thought that co-managers need to establish their identity as independent and separate from government; and that co-management groups should allow communities to make decisions about issues that affect them. Finally, it was noted that effective co-management by truly diverse groups will help raise the importance of the fishing industry in the eyes of political leaders.

“We need co-management in the

future, with all stakeholders. But I am worried about who pays

for what.”

“People on the coast need to talk with people inshore. I’ve learned a lot

that I wouldn’t have learned if I didn’t come

here today.”

Who should be involved Discussion of who should be involved made it clear that the policy level should include the broadest range of stakeholders and that the operational level should consist of a smaller group with a direct stake in the fishery. Some said that the DFO has to play a leading role in “getting people to the table.” Many cited positive examples of where co-management is currently occurring. In most cases, participants said it was occurring between one group and the DFO (a commercial fishing sector, a First Nation, etc.). Many said that these existing groups could be built upon to include a wider range of interests. Some offered that it made sense to include Alaska at the policy level.

Areas of involvement Participants said that co-managers should be involved in a range of areas including habitat stewardship, land and water use planning, stock assessment, monitoring, education, enforcement, gear/harvesting techniques, and in-season catch adjustment. There was some concern expressed about the level of authority of co-managers; if co-managers get “control” that is bordering on a private control over a common property resource.

“It’s ‘our’ problem – not a rec problem or a

commercial problem – all fishers working

together can get the clout to get priorities

and money where they are needed.”

Who should pay There was a great deal of concern about the “who should pay” element of co-management, especially given the difficult economic times facing many fishermen. Specifically, participants said that co-management should not be a “downloading” of the DFO’s responsibilities, and that the DFO needs to be responsible for the funding of its programs. A number of people stated that the constitution is clear regarding the government’s responsibility for funding management of fisheries. Others indicated that the cost-sharing element should be decided upon by the individual co-management groups, and should not be discussed at a general level without the input of co-management participants. Many said that the DFO needs to be a leader or champion of the resource, and clearly state that they put emphasis on the fish. Some saw co-management as an opportunity for diverse groups to come together and leverage funding sources, and that a common “voice” is more


likely to receive funding than separate entities. Some said that highly profitable fisheries should help subsidize the less profitable ones until they can support themselves. Others said that the industry should help pay for what directly benefits them. There was a general theme among almost all participants that more funding is needed to effectively manage the fisheries and that fishermen (in a co-management situation) need to be involved in making decisions on where the funding is directed.

KEY FINDINGS The following represent a summary of the key findings that resulted from a content analysis of all discussion held on fisheries reform:

1. There is mixed support for Individual Quotas It was clear that there is both strong support and opposition to individual quotas (IQs). While it is doubtful that the divergent viewpoints on IQs can provide a clear direction for the DFO, it is worth noting that the majority of fishermen who have experience with IQs support them and believe they contribute to providing a high-quality product and to economic stability within the fishery.

Those who supported IQs clearly stated that fishery participants need to be involved in developing any new harvest sharing system. It was clear that they believed that there is no “one size fits all” approach, and that whatever system is selected needs to be flexible to accommodate the needs of the fishery. The theme of flexibility ran through all discussions on all reform elements at all locations.

Those who opposed IQs were mainly concerned about the affect on the cost of access, particularly as it pertained to the next generation of fishers, First Nations and those with less access to capital in small coastal communities. Loss of employment for crew members was also a concern.

2. Transferability is tied to harvest sharing The intent of the dialogue sessions was to discuss each of the four key elements of fisheries reform separately. This proved to be a difficult task for participants, and was especially evident when discussing harvest sharing and transferability. It was clear that those who supported IQs also supported transferability and that for transferability to work it had to be part of an IQ system for harvest sharing.

“All reform elements (harvest sharing,

licensing, and transferability) are

linked, and cannot be considered separately.”


3. Licence duration and conditions are of secondary importance Of the four elements of fisheries reform, the topic of licensing generated the least input and controversy. Right or wrong, a great number of participants perceived the current licensing system as providing long-term certainty. That said, a number of participants said they wanted long-term certainty and the ability to borrow money from banks.

It was clear that participants believed vessel length and gear restrictions should not be tied to licences, especially under an IQ system. The discussion on where the licence should reside did highlight strong divisions among participants. The majority said removing the licence from the boat (to be held by a person or corporation) would simplify the current situation and provide needed flexibility. However, a vocal minority believed an owner-operator provision is the only way to ensure fishing benefits are realized in coastal communities and by smaller fishing operations.

4. Co-management can take many forms It was clear that participants supported the concept of co-management. However, it was also evident that there is both mistrust that the DFO really intends to listen to co-managers and a lack of understanding of what co-management really means. In participants’ eyes, it must be a genuine partnership with the DFO, among the many other conditions identified on pages 14 and 15 of this report. It was also clear that participants believe that co-management can build on existing processes and that the DFO should not expect all co-management processes to be the same. The “who should pay” question distracted many participants from the more substantive questions at all locations. It was clear that there are many fishery participants who do not feel that they have the capacity to contribute financially to fisheries management. The idea that the co-management groups that ultimately form should decide this question on an individual basis seemed to resonate with many participants.

5. There are other issues the DFO needs to proactively manage This report is intended to document the input of participants on Pacific Fisheries Reform, The Integrated Groundfish Proposal, Proposed Rockfish Conservation Areas in the Georgia Strait, The Wild Salmon Policy, the Fisheries Act Renewal, and proposed SARA listings. However, a broad range of interests at all sessions raised a number of other issues, specifically aquaculture, conservation, land use impacts, and weak stock management. On these issues, it was clear that many participants believe the DFO is doing an inadequate job of managing or communicating about these issues.


Integrated Groundfish Proposal

OVERVIEW The Draft Integrated Groundfish Proposal was presented and discussed at the Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Port Hardy, and Nanaimo multi-interest dialogue sessions and open houses. The Proposal was developed by the Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC), a group of industry representatives convened by the DFO. The CIC has been working over the last 18 months to prepare recommendations on how to integrate groundfish fisheries. The draft proposal is available on line at: http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/consultations/ groundfishin/default_e.htm. A hard copy can be ordered by calling Diana Trager, DFO Regional Resource Manager, Groundfish, at (604) 666-9033.

COMMENT SUMMARY Participants asked questions about and made comments on the draft proposal. Members of the CIC were at each meeting and in many cases responded to the questions and comments. In general, participants were supportive of the draft proposal and the work of the CIC. Primary concerns included cost, representation of interests on the CIC, and the formula for allocation. A summary of the questions and comments on the draft proposal is included below.

• What will it cost to put the cameras on boats? • It’s not fair to base an allocation formula on past history. • If my logbook matches with video counts will I be paying less? • How were representatives to the CIC selected? There are some

groups that are not represented but should be. • Will there be an appeals process? • Will cameras be on 24 hours a day? If so, that is a privacy

issue. • If I typically fish later in the season and the fleet already has

gone over TAC does that mean I can’t fish (even if I have been allocated part of the TAC)?

• How much of the quota will be available for by-catch? • Can one person own all the quota? • What about the First Nations’ interest in these fisheries? • What happens if a sector isn’t willing to give up enough for

other sectors to prosecute their fishery?

“The CIC has done a lot of work but we do still

have some concerns. Will the proposal protect the integrity of the current

fleet? We don’t want the fleet with more capacity to “eat up” the smaller

fleets and we don’t want to see market forces push the cost of leasing quota

so high that will push people out of the

industry.”

• Is DFO developing a policy for sports fishing accountability?


http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/consultations/

• It is unfair to completely monitor the commercial fishery and not the sport fishery.

• The individual fisherman has not been listened to; integration of the transfers should be done through PHMA, not the CIC.

• Equal allocation is not fair to those that have made large investments in bigger boats. Vessel length and history should be considered.

• Integration will lead to concentration of ownership, which will result in loss of jobs and community disinvestment.

• What does 100% access mean? • There needs to be a northern representative on the CIC. • Monitoring costs should be determined on a per-pound-caught

basis in order to be equitable for smaller fishermen. • Will we be allowed to keep our sport licence limit to account

for our bycatch now that we are being 100% electronically monitored?

• The management plans said clearly that history will not be used for allocation, so a number of fishermen sold their “A” licence with lingcod history. The integration proposal has identified history as an allocation method, which will result in many appeals.


Rockfish Conservation Areas

OVERVIEW Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) were presented and discussed at the public open houses and stakeholder dialogue sessions in Nanaimo, Port Hardy, and Vancouver. Additional meetings that were not a part of the multi-issue process were held in Sechelt, Powell River, Mayne Island, Saltspring Island, Saturna Island and Campbell River. DFO staff presented information on the proposed RCAs, an overall rockfish management strategy, and how the proposed RCAs would fit into that strategy. The DFO proposes to designate 30% of rockfish habitat in the Georgia Strait as RCAs and presented preliminary findings on where proposed RCAs should be located. The DFO requested comments on the proposed areas to avoid unreasonable impacts on rockfish and other fishing. Input was requested through the website below. The proposed rockfish conservation areas can be found at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/comm/pages/consultations/fisheriesmgmt/rockfish/ default_e.htm. More information is available from Gary Logan, who can be reached at [email protected] or (604) 666-6810.

COMMENT SUMMARY Many of the participants’ comments on the proposed RCAs centered on common themes: outreach, data, impacts to rockfish. While there were some comments critical of RCAs, the majority showed support for the concept of RCAs, and believed them to be an important part of achieving the long-term sustainability of rockfish populations.

Outreach Some participants said that the DFO had not done enough to inform people about the proposed closures and the open houses/dialogue sessions and the separate sessions that only covered the proposed RCA’s. In this regard, participants cited poorly attended meetings and meetings in places to which affected people could not easily travel. Some also questioned how the website comment page was advertised, how many people had used it, and how people without access to the internet could comment on the proposed areas.


Data In general, participants were impressed by the DFO’s efforts to collect data on habitat and the extent to which the Department has mapped and modeled the ocean floor, using a variety of methods. However, some participants were concerned about the accuracy of some data, specifically catch data. In this instance, they said that the DFO should use groundfish catch data rather than salmon by-catch data and that they should utilize developing technology. Some also said that some of the proposed areas were not rockfish habitat, which meant that there were problems with the accuracy and analysis of data.

Impacts on Rockfish Participants cited a number of impacts to rockfish that the RCA’s won’t help address. Participants were concerned about water quality and the impacts fish farms have on water quality. Specifically, some participants said that rockfish near fish farms have been affected by fish farm contaminant (arsenic and mercury) and have exhibited deformities. Other concerns included the impacts of predation on rockfish.

Proposed Areas Participants had a number of comments about the areas being proposed. While some thought that the 30% number was excessive others said that given the current situation it was not aggressive enough. Others questioned why some areas were located in inlets when they are of minor importance to rockfish.

General RCA Comments and Questions Participants had a number of other comments and questions about RCAs. This section includes a summary of these comments:

• How long will the RCA’s be in effect? • Will the remaining open areas be able to support the

TAC? • There needs to be flexibility in order to allow shore-based

recreational fishing. • Did you identify spawning areas? • What is the goal and how are you sure that RCA’s in 30%

of the Strait will achieve it? • Would the DFO consider rehabilitation or stock

enhancement?


• The DFO needs to be aggressive in enforcing no fishing in RCA’s.

Wild Salmon Policy The Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) was released by the Minister in June 2005. The policy describes six strategies for conserving and protecting wild stocks of Pacific salmon. The DFO is now transitioning into policy implementation. The presentation on the WSP provided information on the key elements of the policy and the framework for implementation. The WSP is available on line at: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/wsp/default_e.htm. A hard copy can be ordered from Mark Saunders, Wild Salmon Policy Team Co-ordinator, at [email protected] or (250) 756-7270.

COMMENT SUMMARY There were a number of questions and comments about the WSP. The following is a summary of those questions and comments:

• What is the cost of implementing the WSP and what does the allocated $1.1 million cover?

• How will Conservation Units be determined? • Does the WSP mean that the DFO is moving away from

enhancement? • The DFO continued support of aquaculture goes against the

policy’s statement that conservation of salmon is the number one priority.

• Utilizing accepted local and regional plans, existing information, and existing forums will help to gain legitimacy – don’t create new processes.

• New forums may have to be created to pull in people who are not involved in existing processes.

• The DFO should work with the province to get them to enforce rules and regulations on land uses.

• You can’t talk about conservation without talking about fish farms; they need to be on land.

• It’s troubling when one branch of the government can keep us from fishing but it can’t keep people from doing other things (logging, mining, farming, etc.) when they are harming fish or fish habitat.

• We are constrained by Sakinaw and Cultus Lake populations, yet it is questionable whether those lakes can support viable populations, especially given the other activities that occur on them.

• I hope this policy goes beyond the knee-jerk reaction of closing the fishery whenever there is a problem.


http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/wsp/default_e.htm

http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/wsp/default_e.htm

mailto:[email protected]

• The Sierra Club is pleased that conservation was put first but hoped that the WSP would be more prescriptive.

• Is there a cut-off point where the DFO will say that a population cannot be recovered?

• The policy needs to address the full range of problems – sea lions, seals, habitat, etc.

• The WSP needs to foster flexibility in weak stock management.

• Will funds be made available through the WSP for the purchase of key habitat?

• Do you have a budget request for ongoing implementation in the next budget process?

• How will the WSP deal with the Province’s jurisdiction over habitat?

• WSP implementation needs to recognize the importance of the entire life cycle of fish – not just when they are caught.

• The DFO cannot fund current enforcement needs; how will it be able to effectively implement this new program?

• WSP implementation needs to consider spreading out fisheries (as opposed to area fishing) as a way to achieve conservation.

• DFO needs to better understand the ocean (warming and salinity) and how it affects salmon.

• Conservation Units should be determined by watersheds. • As a management option, reducing catch only masks other

environmental problems. • Habitat impacts cannot continue to go unaddressed, and

must be considered as a management option to limit activities that degrade habitat.

• Education/change of public values is the best way to convince people to play a role in conservation.


Fisheries Act Renewal Fisheries Act Renewal is being led by a national team of senior DFO staff. The Act is being revised because it is over 130 years old and does not allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to manage the resource in a way that reflects the changing nature of the resource and those that have a stake or interest in the resource. The DFO made a presentation on the Act’s renewal that provided an overview of the Act, and the need for renewal, and that described the key elements being proposed for change. The DFO made this presentation in this round of sessions, and in similar sessions throughout the country, to provide Canadian citizens with information on Act renewal prior to the tabling of the Act by the Minister.

COMMENT SUMMARY Participants asked a number of questions and made a number of comments regarding the Fisheries Act Renewal. Many voiced frustration that the draft of the proposed changes was not available for review, and therefore, consultations on this topic were not being held in good faith. The following is a summary of the questions and comments regarding Fisheries Act renewal:

• The Yukon Territory’s Umbrella Agreement dictates that the federal government must consult with the territory prior to tabling the act.

• The act’s preamble should acknowledge fisheries as more than an industry; that it has cultural, social, and environmental values.

• Will habitat violations be part of the updating of the fees, fines, and regulations?

• Other act renewal processes have provided draft text prior to tabling (the Yukon Environmental and Social Assessment Act).

• The renewal process requires broader consultation outside of the parliamentary process.

• The renewal should include language that identifies the DFO as accountable.

• The renewal should make it clear that violators will be aggressively pursued.

• The Act needs to provide for transparency on how decisions are made.

• Enforcement has to figure more prominently in the Act.


• It seems that the Act renewal has gone too far towards giving the Minister absolute authority and making wholesale changes when in its current form it has served well for a long time.

• How does the renewed Act allow you to move ahead with fisheries reform? Could you do those things without renewing the Act?

• The renewed Act needs to be more pro-active in protecting habitat than the current Act.

• Community interests need to be addressed in the Act. • It is unclear how the new Act treats recreational fishing, and

its importance to British Columbia. • How will the Minister be accountable for licence fees? Will

there be compensation provided? • It is not clear that this is the beginning of the engagement

process. • Does any part of the Act address quotas? • I am concerned that the government is handing over the

allocation process to a group that isn’t involved in the fishery (lawyers).

• There should be some language in the Act that ensures that the small boat owner is protected.

• It seems like a lot of what is presented is already covered in the Oceans Act and the existing Fisheries Act.

• What has predicated the change in the Fisheries Act? • The DFO should review the Act of Union between Canada

and British Columbia to determine if the DFO has lived up to its obligations under this agreement.


Proposed New Listings

OVERVIEW The DFO presented information on the proposed new listings at the open house portion of the consultations and at the dialogue session portion of the Whitehorse meeting3. The five species that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) proposes for formal listing under SARA are the North Pacific Right Whale (Endangered), Fin Whale (Threatened), Green Sturgeon (Special Concern) and Bering Cisco (Special Concern). The primary method for commenting on the proposed new listings is a Consultation Workbook. The workbook provides specific information on each species and asks a series of questions regarding its possible listing under SARA. The workbook, which was provided at all meetings, is also available on-line at http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/consultations/consultation2005/workbook_e.htm. A separate report on the input received from the workbooks will be available on the same website in early 2006.

The only comments received at the dialogue sessions on proposed new listings were made by Whitehorse participants on the Bering Cisco.

Bering Cisco Comments on the proposed listing of the Bering Cisco as a species of Special Concern were made on consultation and the criteria for listing the Bering Cisco.

Consultation Some participants stated that the Yukon Salmon Committee has specific responsibility for the Bering Cisco, and because of that the COSEWIC should have consulted with the Committee prior to listing. Others said that the system for listing went awry because local knowledge was not used in the decision-making process.

Criteria for listing Some participants noted that the threats identified by COSEWIC – dams and increased harvest – are not threats because there are no plans for dams or increased harvest. Others stated that there is simply not enough information on the Bering Cisco to list it, and

3 The Bering Cisco was the only species covered at the Whitehorse Dialogue Session.


that it should be identified as “data deficient.” It was also noted that the Yukon Territorial government has recommended not listing, and that the information used to recommend the listing is three years old, and needs to be updated. New studies indicate that the species is abundant in Alaska.

Some said that the range of the Bering Cisco was not adequately assessed, and that it is a species that just strays into Canada. Watershed health of a species should be used as a listing criterion, and that on a watershed basis, the Bering Cisco is not at risk.

Others said that listing would not change anything that is already happening now, and that it would be better to take a precautionary approach and list it. A management plan will not be onerous and will help to address the Bering Cisco issues that do exist.


Recommendations This section provides recommendations that the authors of this report believe will improve future consultations and the processes underway concerning the topics covered in this report.

It is important to note the substantial effort the DFO is making to inform and involve the full range of First Nations and interest groups in this process.

CONTINUE CONSULTATIONS As a result of conducting these consultations, the following recommendations are offered as a means to build upon and improve consultations.

Regardless of the agency holding consultations and subject being discussed, there will always be critics who say that there was not representation of one group or another at public meetings. We heard some of this criticism at these sessions, but by and large the sessions were well-attended and had representatives from multiple sectors. The diversity of viewpoints on the issues discussed also indicates that inviting representatives from a broad range was effective. This type of outreach (delegated representation) effectively communicates the importance of the meetings in a way that more open advertising cannot. That said, there were other interests that were not represented whose participation could have been beneficial to the discussions. Participation by the Province and land use interests would have been particularly beneficial on topics such as co-management and the WSP. While it is impossible to force all interests to the table, repeated invitations, especially if they are personally extended, may prove to be effective.

Recommendation #1: Continue and build upon targeted efforts to engage First Nations and stakeholders by invitation, and increase efforts to engage stakeholders who have not traditionally participated.

In addition to the representative invitation method, other elements of the dialogue sessions were well-thought out and were implemented effectively. The multi-issue format allowed participants to learn about and provide input on a range of issues. Although participation in the sessions required a substantial amount of time and effort by both participants and the DFO, the format is far more effective than holding separate consultations on each issue. Participants are more likely to attend one well-planned and informative session than a number of separate events on related issues.

Recommendation #2: Continue to seek out opportunities to consult with First Nations and stakeholders in a multi-issue format.

Another successful element of the sessions was the participation by members of the Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC). In many cases CIC members were able to respond to the questions and comments raised by session participants. The interaction between the CIC members and meeting participants occurred on a different level than interactions between


DFO staff and meeting participants. The fact that meeting participants received information from their peers provided a high level of credibility to the draft proposal. While not everyone agreed with the proposal, it was evident that fishermen were meaningfully involved in its development; it was evident that the draft proposal will receive a higher level of support than if it was developed in a more traditional process of developing it internally and then asking for comments. Enabling the interaction of groups such as the CIC and meeting participants also strengthens the DFO’s role in facilitating information exchange among the department’s stakeholders. It is likely that elements of fisheries reform will require additional consultation which could benefit from the process used to develop the Integrated Groundfish Proposal.

Recommendation #3: Continue to seek out opportunities to engage groups of First Nations and stakeholders as partners in the exploration and resolution of issues, and include those partners in consultations with a broader range of First Nations and stakeholders.

The DFO has taken a number of steps to improve its consultation processes, some of which have been discussed above, and also include providing documentation of meetings in a timely manner. We did not hear from participants that the DFO should be consulting less, but we did hear that participants have certain expectations about how consultations should proceed. In summary, participants don’t think consultation begins and ends with one meeting on a particular subject. They see consultation as a continuum that supports a decision-making process -- where DFO reports back what they heard and moves down a path where issues are presented and discussed first, and then solutions are considered and evaluated. Participants don’t expect that they will always “get their way” but do expect to be told how their input was used. Ongoing consultations will help build the relationships necessary to achieve many of the fisheries reform elements being considered.

Recommendation #4: Plan and implement consultation processes that support decision-making in a meaningful and sequential way, and demonstrate that you use the input you receive to make decisions.

PROACTIVELY MANAGE ISSUES Participants raised a number of very important issues that were not part of the consultations. In some cases participants used these issues to sidetrack the sessions. These issues have been discussed in previous sections of this report, and represent a challenge to consultative processes in the broader sense: people will always bring up subjects that are outside the scope of a particular process. As is the case in these situations, the treatment of the issue may not be fair or accurate, and the responsible agency is not prepared to respond to the information presented. Certainly, not every issue can be covered or planned for at every consultation, and it is unlikely that all participants would be satisfied by any response given by the DFO at these sessions. However, it is evident that these issues are extremely important, cannot be ignored, and require additional management. It is likely that the Province will need to be involved with DFO given the specific issues that were raised.


Recommendation #5: Develop the appropriate partnerships and plans in order to communicate accurate and timely information to First Nations and stakeholders on key issues and to identify specific concerns that then can be addressed in a constructive manner.


Appendix A: Fisheries Reform Discussion Guide


department of fisheries and oceans

Documents