Publications 

Creating New Wealth from the Sea Vol. III

Creating New Wealth from the Sea

Policy alternatives for an economically and socially sustainable Canadian fishery

Volume III

The Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters

A National Voice for Canadian Fish Harvesters

The Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters is a non-profit organization founded in 1995. The Council's mission is to ensure that fish harvesters have appropriate knowledge, skills and commitment to meet the human resources needs of the Canadian fishery, now and in the future.

The objectives of our organization are:

1. to represent the interests of professional fish harvesters across Canada in their dealings with the federal, provincial and territorial governments on national issues of common concern;
2. to provide, in collaboration with Canada's professional fish harvester organizations, the structure and leaderships for fish harvester professionalization;

3. to act as a National Industry Sector Council to plan and implement training and human resource development programs for the fish harvesting industry in Canada.

The Council is a federation of the main fish harvesters' organizations in Atlantic Canada, QuÈbec and British Columbia. A Board of Directors governs the Council with representatives from member groups. The major policies and action plans of the Council are decided at national conferences with representation from all affiliated fish harvester organizations. The Council received start-up funding from Human Resources Development Canada, but will become a self-sustaining industry supported organization in the near future.

The members of the Council are: the Alliance des pÍcheurs professionnels du QuÈbec (APPQ), the Association des pÍcheurs professionnels membres d'Èquipage (APPME), the Eastern Fishermen's Federation (EFF), the FÈdÈration des pÍcheurs semi-hauturiers du QuÈbec (FPSQ), the FÈdÈration rÈgionale acadienne des pÍcheurs professionnels (FRAPP), the Fish Food & Allied Workers (FFAW-CAW), the Lake Manitoba Commercial Fishermen's Association (LMCFA), the Maritime Fishermen's Union (MFU), the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia (NBBC), the Pacific Gillnetters Association (PGA), the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association (PEIFA), the United Fishermen & Allied Workers Union (UFAWU-CAW), and the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association (BFIFA).

Foreword

Three and a half years ago leaders of the Canadian fishing industry on both coasts sat down with the Federal Minister of Fisheries and his most senior officials to hammer out consensus agreements on how their fisheries should be managed.

On the West Coast, licensing changes that first forced specialisation on small boat fishermen a decade ago are now pushing them out of the fishery entirely. Policies that will concentrate the wealth of the Pacific fishery in a small number of highly capitalised vessels are unacceptable to the Council, to BC's fish harvesters and to the province's fishery dependent coastal communities. In our lead article we analyse what's wrong with the West coast fishery and put forward some proposals that would make it socially and economically viable.

On the East coast the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' focus on corporate and specialised fleets for their initial partnership agreements has once again raised the spectre of fisheries privatisation. As our article on co-management points out, despite being highly suspicious of "partnership agreements" inshore harvesters throughout Atlantic Canada are gradually extending their influence over fisheries management through a multitude of locally inspired co-management processes. The Council's research into co-management clearly shows fish harvesters want to participate in management and can bring creative new approaches to old problems.

Here and there in Atlantic Canada harvesters are seeing clear signs that cod stocks are recovering. Unfortunately, however, the enormous gaps between fish harvester and scientific knowledge are once again emerging. As Bill Broderick points out in his article on fisheries science, fish harvesters are fed up with having their knowledge about stock conditions ignored. They want a new approach to science that will go beyond the standard lip service about fish harvester participation.

The marginalisation of small boat interests in fisheries management is not exclusively a Canadian problem. Over the last two years the Council has been working closely with India's National Fishworkers Forum to create solidarity links between fish harvester organizations around the world that are struggling against the industrial approach to fisheries management. The creation of the World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fishworkers and the declaration of November 21 as World Fisheries day are two important steps forward in this regard.

Lastly, the Council has continued to monitor the economic performance of the fishery. Once again our analysis shows that the economic value of our fisheries continues to grow, despite the stocks collapses and the management failures. But serious problems remain as to how the wealth of the sea is shared. As professional fish harvesters we want to bring to Canadians our views on how this wealth should be shared, nurtured and managed.

We look forward to your comments on our views.

Earle McCurdy

President

Making the West Coast fishery viable

"Maintaining a viable small boat fleet along the coast is crucial to sustaining communities and ensuring that there are people with an abiding interest in protecting and maintaining fish stocks."

"No government buyback of vessels should proceed without a fleet board and a broad consultative process with harvester organizations and communities to determine the best size and makeup of the fishing fleet."

The coho crisis and the accompanying drastic cuts in salmon fishing signal for many people another fishery in trouble. The federal government's response is to eliminate hundreds of boats from the fleet and push thousands of fishermen and plants workers from the industry. Suddenly the questions that troubled Atlantic Canada are being echoed on the pacific coast.

Are our West Coast fisheries sustainable?
Can they continue to support jobs and incomes in coastal communities?
Can stocks, particularly salmon stocks, be rebuilt to historic levels?

How we answer those questions highlights two very different visions of the future for West Coast fisheries.

As fish harvesters, we would give a solid yes on all three counts. We have seen how proper fisheries management can contribute to strong local economies and thriving communities. We have seen how, with encouragement, the fishing industry can grow and diversify developing new markets and products. Perhaps more importantly, we have seen fishermen explore new ways to work with coastal communities and environmental groups in developing fishing plans and selective fishing methods that will ensure a future for fishing.

A fishery for the future

West Coast fisheries products have a prominent place in world export markets; canned salmon in Britain, herring roe, geoduck clams, sea urchin and prawns in Asian markets. In 1996, the seafood industry generated $942 million in wholesale values, despite low returns on salmon. In 1994, when the salmon runs were strong, the total was nearly $1.2 billion.

In 1991, provincial, federal and fishing industry initiatives created a new industry on the West Coast of Vancouver, producing surimi from the previously under-utilised Pacific hake stocks. More recent initiatives have created new opportunities for harvesters and processors on North Coast dogfish and as well as pilchards which have returned to B.C. waters.

But the reduced salmon returns and theconservation crisis now affecting coho certainly presents troubling signs in the fishery. Changing weather patterns have reduced ocean survival, destruction of spawning and rearing habitat through logging and urban development, even some excessive fishing pressure on certain stocks: all have taken their toll.

Still harvesters have survived those downturns in the past. The crisis we are facing today reveals a much more fundamental structural problem with the federal government's fisheries management.

For the past quarter century, the salmon fishery has been the anchor of the small boat fishing fleet on the West Coast. Beginning in the early spring, harvesters would move from roe herring to salmon in the summer to halibut in the winter. The multi-species licences enabled fishermen to maintain their incomes and sustain their communities even during cyclical downturns. But licensing changes over the past decade forced specialisation on the small boat fishermen taking away their ability to fish other species and is now pushing them out of the salmon fishery.

Ottawa's fisheries policies have increasingly been driven by the government's desire to privatise the fisheries resource and offload the cost of fisheries management on to fish harvesters.

Management without consultation

In 1990, DFO's Pacific Region published a document called Vision 2000 which promised polices that would lead to the expansion of economic and social viability of coastal communities and would involve communities and the public in consultation.

It also declared the department's intention to move towards property rights concepts for all fisheries.

Nearly a decade later, DFO has not delivered on the promises of economic and social viability. But it has moved decisively on the creation of private property fisheries and market-driven fisheries management.

Since that document was released, the department has established Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) in five different fisheries. Over the years, that quota has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, many of them controlled by corporations. And many fish harvesters have been pushed out by the high management costs imposed on them.

In the halibut fishery, for example, the number of licence-holders actually participating in the fishery has dropped steadily, from 433 in 1991 to 279 in 1997. Halibut quota from non-participants is leased to working fishermen, a practice which both creates a class of absentee or armchair fishermen and adds enormously to the cost of fishing for those going out to the grounds.

In addition, according to a DFO manager's report in 1995, 32 per cent of the crew jobs have been lost as a result of the introduction of ITQs. For fish harvesters and communities alike that has meant another loss of income.

Significantly, the introduction of ITQs was carried out despite the opposition of the main organizations representing fish harvesters. The department also ignored the advice of special fisheries commissioner Don Cruikshank whose 1991 report strongly recommended adoption of an owner-operator policy to minimise quota leasing.
So much for consultation!

Similarly, the advent of area licensing in the roe herring fishery led to hundreds of armchair fishermen, many of them from outside the fishery, leasing their licences. Licence leasing, which is driven by DFO licensing policies, took an estimated $50 million out of the value of the fishery in 1996

With the introduction of the Mifflin Plan in 1996, however, DFO cut the anchor line and set the West Coast fishery adrift. Boats that had once fished the whole coast were now locked into one licence area, with little opportunity in some years to catch enough fish to make a living. To fish another area, a fish harvester is now compelled to buy an additional licence at a substantial cost and stack it on his boat. That has added immensely to capital costs and made it even more difficult than before for harvesters to make a living from their fishing operations.

Worse, the loss of other species fishing privileges has made independent harvesters vulnerable to short term conservation problems in the salmon fishery, such as the current coho crisis.

Two years after the Mifflin plan was implemented, the combination of vessel buyback program and licence stacking has reduced the salmon fleet by one-third. But that fleet reduction has been concentrated in the small boat fleet, among independent gill-netters and trollers, leaving the seine fleet only marginally affected. The small boat fleet will be reduced even more drastically if there is a market-driven buyback or unrestrained licence stacking.

As many had predicted, the plan has led inevitably to increased corporate control over the catch. A study commissioned by DFO showed that 35 per cent of the seine fleet is corporate-owned. And special fisheries advisor Parzival Copes, a professor of fisheries science who conducted a review for the province of B.C., stated that the percentage would be closer to 60 per cent when the various production contracts with companies are taken into account.

For the federal government and for the large processors on the West Coast, the vision of the future is a severely reduced small boat fleet, and high volume catches concentrated among a small number of highly capitalised vessels; the very policy that led to the cod collapse in Atlantic Canada.

As groups representing independent fish harvesters, we have a very different vision for the future of the West Coast fishery. We see the potential to rebuild the resource and renew the fishery. We know what can be done when there is government commitment as there was a generation ago when DFO set out to rebuild the Fraser River runs. We see licensing and economic development policies that will maximise the economic and social benefits from the fishery for coastal communities and ensure stewardship over the resource.

Policy changes that are within our reach as Canadians are necessary to realise that vision.

Adoption of an owner-operator model for fisheries:

Special fisheries commissioners, from Don Cruikshank in 1991 to Parzival Copes in 1998, have recommended the owner-operator model as the most efficient and socially beneficial model for the inshore fisheries of the West Coast. Owner-operators have the greatest interest in maintaining their boats and operations and bringing the benefits of fishing to coastal communities, along with the crew income their operations provide. An owner-operator policy is essential to ensuring that fishing capacity does not become concentrated in the hands of large companies through costly quota and licence-leasing arrangements.

Ensuring the viability of the small boat fleet:

Fish harvesters accept that there must be a reduction in the fishing fleet. But first, that reduction must be based on determining the optimum fleet profile and catching capacity, based on maximising the economic and social benefits from the resource. As world-renowned Canadian broadcaster and environmentalist David Suzuki has noted, preserving vital human communities is as important as preserving the fish. Maintaining a viable small boat fleet along the coast is crucial to sustaining communities and ensuring that there are people with an abiding interest in protecting and maintaining fish stocks.

There must be genuine consultation between fish harvesters organizations and government to establish a fleet reform board that will oversee fleet reduction to ensure that the small boat fleet and independent operators remain economically viable now and in the future. No government buyback of vessels should proceed without a fleet board and a broad consultative process with harvester organizations and communities to determine the best size and makeup of the fishing fleet.

Government commitment to resource renewal:

Reports prepared by DFO's Fraser River Action Committee, the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries and more recently, Professor Copes state that salmon production from British Columbia rivers could be increased substantially, even doubled, from current levels under a comprehensive habitat renewal and enhancement program. The West Coast salmon fishery is not like the Atlantic cod fishery. Salmon populations, as past cycles have shown, can rebound in a few years and can be closely monitored as they do.

We have an historic opportunity to use displaced fishermen and plant workers in federal and provincial programs coastwide to renew fisheries through new stock assessment programs, stream mapping, habitat restoration and other initiatives.

Maintaining the integrity of the fleet in allocations policy:

Independent fish harvesters can only be viable and sustainable if they continue to have access to a defined share of the fish that is available for harvest. In the past, fish harvesters developed effective allocation policies that maintained the integrity of fleet sectors. But now federal government policies are being designed that will move allocations from small owner-operators as their fleet sector is reduced. For independent operators, that will not only make it more difficult to earn an income but will also concentrate access in the corporate-owned and controlled sectors of the fleet.

Fish harvesters must play a decisive role in deter-mining allocation policy, to ensure that access to the fish is shared fairly and all fleet sectors benefit from fleet reduction.

Bringing decision-making to the region:

As federal budgets have been cut and local management reduced, DFO has also centralised its decision-making in Ottawa. Policies have been developed bureaucratically, often with little accountability to the region most affected by those policies. That must change. Government and departmental policy must be made accountable to the region and changes made in government management bodies to ensure that accountability.

Ensuring a central role for fish harvester organizations in developing policy:

At the centre of the crisis in West Coast fisheries is the DFO's lack of consultation with fish harvesters organizations. Ottawa does not consult with regions before it makes policy; it develops the policy bureaucratically, discusses it with those affected and then implements it with only minor modifications. That too, must change. Fish harvesters must be given a role in discussing and developing policy. Certainly there must not be any further changes to West Coast fisheries policy without the involvement of harvesters in designing those changes.

The way forward on co-management

" Despite being highly suspicious of ‘partnership agreements' inshore harvesters throughout Atlantic Canada are gradually extending their influence over fisheries management through a multitude of locally inspired co-management processes. The Council's research shows that fish harvesters clearly want to participate in management and that they can bring creative new approaches to old problems.&qout;

The first Creating New Wealth from the Sea, published by the Council in June, 1996, included the following statement:

We support the concept of co-management with industry shouldering more management responsibilities together with government.

Since the report was published, however, the idea of co-management has become increasingly confused and controversial, and industry organizations now express views on the topic ranging from cautious interest to outright distrust.

Many harvester leaders see co-management as yet another example of government talking about grass roots participation and consultation, but doing the opposite. They point to top-down decision-making on issues like fleet reduction, licence fees, small craft harbours, down-loading of surveillance and enforcement costs, and resource allocations. The most serious criticism is that the DFO's co-management policy is just a smoke screen to advance the government's agenda to privatize fish resources and force everyone onto individual transferable quotas (ITQs).

The fact that the DFO has targeted specialized corporate or mid-shore fleets for their initial "partnering" agreements (e.g. offshore scallops, Pacific halibut, groundfish mobile gear, snow crab etc.) has also made the multi-species inshore sector suspicious of the government's motives.

Against this background of mistrust and controversy, the DFO asked the Council to consult with its member organizations about guidelines for co-management in the multi-licence inshore fishery.

The project provided an opportunity for the Council to look closely at some of the many fisheries management activities that inshore harvesters in Atlantic Canada and QuÈbec have initiated in their local areas and for harvesters to discuss and debate wider policy issues related to co-management.What follows is a brief summary of the Council's report.

The DFO's approach to Co-Management

The DFO's co-management policy has been in place since 1995. It involves two principal elements which impact on the multi-licence inshore sector: Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs) and partnering arrangements.

IFMPs are gradually being introduced by the DFO for each individual fishery. They are built on the established system of advisory committees and fisheries management plans, but are intended to involve wider consultations with licence holders and other stakeholders. They are also supposed to pull together the activities of all the DFO sectors -- Resource Management, Science, Conservation and Protection, Policy and Economics, etc. -- in one planning process.

Fisheries management "partnering arrangements" involve negotiated agreements between DFO and industry groups to share regulatory, administrative and other responsibilities. At present such arrangements are set up as joint project agreements (JPAs) which define the administrative and financial aspects of the legal contracts between the partners. In most cases, industry is expected to take on some responsibilities and costs for the day-to-day micro-management of the fishery that were previously carried by DFO, in return for greater security of access to resources and expanded control over their own fishing operations. A proposed new Fisheries Act contains legislative mechanisms for more comprehensive and longer term transfers of management authority, subject to the Minister's continuing responsibility for conservation, through formal fisheries management agreements.

The inshore sector's concerns about co-management

Multi-licenced inshore harvesters throughout Atlantic Canada and QuÈbec consistently raised concerns about co-management throughout the consultations leading up to the Council's report.

These concerns can be summarized as follows:

1. The need for multi-species approaches to fisheries management: both form a conservation perspective, and in terms of the way they conduct their multi-species enterprises, inshore harvesters want to see mechanisms that promote integrated planning and regulation of all fishing activities in a given area;
2. Privatization of the resource: co-management is seen by many harvesters as part of a continuing push by DFO for privatization of fish resources and of the management system, particularly through the implementation of individual transferable quota (ITQ) regimes.
3. Concerns about "Economic Viability": in contrast to the DFO's narrow approach to enterprise viability based on single species fisheries, multi-licence harvesters favor a comprehensive accounting system that would also look at the viability of fleets and fishing communities;
4. Cost down-loading: harvester groups are concerned that the continued down-loading of costs through higher license fees, dockside monitoring costs, etc. is having negative impacts on enterprise viability in the inshore, multi-licence fleets;
5. Ineffective capacity reduction: harvesters want to see more industry control over capacity reduction and programs that are sensitive to local conditions and will produce optimal gains in terms of overall fleet viability;

Inshore harvesters would like to see provisions in the new Fisheries Act the Act to define clear roles and responsibilities for broad-based organizations with regard to co-management their sectors. They also want the Act to define clearly who can be partners within a transparent process for negotiating fisheries management agreements.

Building Co-Management

The report describes a number of exciting local projects where harvesters, with or without the support of DFO, are taking the initiative to build new fisheries management systems that work effectively at the local level:

• In Newfoundland's Eastport Peninsula harvesters are doing their own lobster stock assessment research after setting up a new system to enforce minimum size limits.
• In Gulf Nova Scotia groups have come together to design a comprehensive capacity reduction strategy.
• On Digby Neck and in Shelburne County, Nova Scotia, local harvester groups are managing their groundfish allocations through innovative community based management systems.
• All around the Atlantic region local harvester groups are adapting new approaches to research and education to improve recruitment levels in the critically important lobster fishery.

These current activities are clearly part of a long tradition of multi-licence harvester groups taking responsibility for the management of their industry. While the DFO has only recently embraced the concept of co-management, harvester groups have long pushed for genuine partnership with government whereby the knowledge, competencies and economic interests of harvesters are fully recognized, and where they have a meaningful say in the decisions that shape their working lives.

The Council's Board of Directors is putting forward the co-management report to stimulate discussion among harvesters and their organizations and within government. While it is not able to take a clear policy stance until its member organizations have fully considered the issues, the Council is putting forward for discussion the following three action steps to advance co-management in the multi-licence inshore sector.

1. Co-Management Advisory Councils
   DFO and the legitimate harvester organizations could work together to design and put in place representative advisory councils to act as consultation, planning and coordinating bodies for the continuing elaboration of co-management in multi-licence inshore fisheries. The Councils would generate advice and seek industry consensus in areas such as harvester registration systems, professionalization, long-term fleet planning, community based management, and locally based co-management projects. In determining their coverage by area, such councils would be built from the ground up and shaped by harvester communities who choose to group together. DFO staff and harvester representatives would work together through the Councils on fisheries management plans, local co-management projects and partnering agreements.
2. Regional Working Groups on Capacity Building
   DFO and the established harvester organizations in each region would work together to help harvester groups to participate in co-management for multi-licence inshore fisheries. Among the issues to be addressed would be: the need for stronger, better financed harvester organizations; education and training programs to strengthen local knowledge and skills; better networking among local and regional harvester groups; and ongoing evaluation of regional and local co-management initiatives to support the sharing of experience, knowledge and skills.
3. A Co-Management Investment Fund
   These regional working groups couldundertake to set up funds for local harvester groups to support the development of co-management projects. Harvester groups often have excellent ideas for ways to improve their fisheries but have difficulty getting the start-up money. An investment fund should be self-sustaining by investing in activities that can pay for themselves over the medium term. It is hoped that the CCPFH discussion paper on co-management for multi-licence inshore fisheries will contribute to a well-informed debate on fisheries management issues and to better understanding among government and the harvester community.Groups or individuals wanting to see the full discussion paper should contact the Council Office.

Bringing fish harvester knowledge into fisheries science and management

by Bill Broderick*

"Just as inshore fish harvesters were the first to notice the decline of our cod stocks and the first to raise the alarm -- we are also the first to witness the many signs of rebuilding. Unfortunately no one listened to us then and no one is listening to us now."

The relationship among fish harvesters, scientists and managers is critical to the future fishery --- and like any healthy relationship it must be based on trust and respect. We all know that this relationship is far from healthy because it lacks those fundamental characteristics.

It's an understatement to say that fish harvesters have been frustrated with the entire consultation process in both the science and management areas. They are frustrated with the lack of recognition of their knowledge. They are tired of the lip service. They are fed-up.

How did we reach this strained relationship?

Nearly six years ago, inshore fish harvesters on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador saw a large part of their industry collapse. This was followed by similar historic stock declines on the south and west coasts of the province.

Cod, once the backbone of most coastal communities, seemed to disappear from our shores. Moratorium - once a foreign word to most of us - soon became a household expression.

For six years, we have endured the frustration and disappointment of what could be described as the "water haul" that never ended. Having seen many ups and downs in the fishery over the years, we are no strangers to water hauls.

But nothing has threatened the foundation of our communities and our lives more than the "dreaded" moratorium.

However, when I travel around Newfoundland and Labrador these days, I sense a growing strength in the face of much adversity. Those that have survived are stronger and more defiant than at any other time in our history.

Just as inshore fish harvesters were the first to notice the decline of our cod stocks and the first to raise the alarm -- we are also the first to witness the many signs of rebuilding. Unfortunately no one listened to us then and no one is listening to us now. We hear the reports on the stocks --- reports that we have trouble reconciling with our own observations.Once again there is conflicting information about the state of the cod stocks.

Either we -- who owe our existence to our understanding of cod and cod behaviour -- are wrong --- or those who claim to know are wrong.

The problem is no one knows for certain. Fisheries science is not exact, just as fish harvesters' knowledge of cod behaviour and trends is not exact. No one knows for sure and certain how many fish are in the ocean. So why pretend? Why tie ourselves to models that have failed us in the past and continue to fail us?

As fish harvesters and scientists we know there are too many variables... changing migration patterns, cold water as a result of onshore winds, pollution, seals, natural mortality, exploitation... and the list goes on. These variables make it impossible to be exact.

The one thing fish harvesters have relied on over the years are their observations --- their first-hand experience on the water and the experiences of our forefathers, which have been passed down from father to son. These observations translate into our ability to identify trends and to be able to read the signs.

Trends and signs are very important. They are like a fish harvester's time series which science says is so important to predicting stock abundance. Trends -- the fact that it was taking more and more gear to catch fewer and fewer fish or the fact that we are now observing "good signs" of fish... these trends are what fish harvesters have always depended on.

While fish harvesters are now familiar with terms like biomass (trawlable and spawning), metric tonnes, natural mortality, recruitment, total allowable catch and year classes -- they will always be a little foreign to us... because we know there is no way to predict stocks with total accuracy.

Having said that... this does not mean fish harvesters do not want to be involved in the collection and interpretation of fisheries data. We want to be involved and I think there are many examples of how we have jumped at the chance of participating when the opportunities arise.

Fish harvesters believe we have made great strides towards accepting the role of science and the need to document fish behaviour. The moratorium has forced fishermen to get to know their environment better and to document and share their observations with others. The sharing of this information is a matter of survival.

While fishermen have moved light years from where we were, the same can't be said of others. Our work, our observations, our data, our interpretation are still being ignored --- ignored as a result of the paralysis that has overtaken the senior levels of science and management at DFO. But ultimately it is being ignored because there is no trust, no respect.

In many ways the historical relationship among harvesters, managers and scientists was characterized by a total disregard for the knowledge and opinions of fish harvesters. In the past, our experience was dismissed as anecdotal and it would be difficult to prove that it is not also being dismissed today.

For example fish harvesters in all cod areas in Newfoundland worked hard at arriving at a consensus and at preparing for the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) consultations. The same thing for lobster. Fish harvesters came up with detailed proposals for local management measures based on their knowledge of the lobster resource. Fish harversters worked hard at finding ways to increase egg counts. But when it came to the Lobster Management Plan and the setting of cod quotas for the sentinel fisheries... once again their knowledge and their recommendations based on that knowledge were ignored.

Once again DFO took the "father knows best" attitude.

Is it any wonder then, that fish harvesters are frustrated? Is it any wonder fish harvesters are asking who are we rebuilding the stocks for? Is it any wonder, fish harvesters are saying that until there is fish offshore, we'll never be able to go fishing? Is it any wonder why science lacks credibility in our minds?

This makes a meaningful relationship among fish harvesters, scientists and managers based on mutual respect and trust nearly impossible.

In order to build a relationship --- there must be an acceptance of the importance of fish harvesters knowledge, experience and observations. Flexibility. Open-mindedness. These are key to building a solid relationship among scientists, managers and harvesters.

We hear a lot about partnerships. DFO's vision of partnership is to offload their work onto the backs of fishermen and fishermen's organizations. When fishermen ask to have more say and input, this is not what they meant. I'm not convinced partnerships between resource managers and fish harvesters are possible.

It's difficult to be partners with someone who constantly has their hand in your pocket, but it's also difficult to be partners with anyone who constantly undermines your work. There is a crucial job for resource regulators which could be eased somewhat if consultation meant more than lip service.

Fish harvesters are tired of having their hard work, their knowledge of stocks in their area ignored. This disregard sends a clear message... DFO may preach partnership, but in reality the department does not share the same meaning of the word as fishermen do.

While fish harvesters and fish managers may never become partners.... we can co-operate. But cooperation is a two-way street.

Scientists should get out amongst fish harvesters more and share expertise. This is happening in the sentinel program which in many ways has navigated previously uncharted waters: by involving fish harvesters in data collection; and by improving communication between scientists and fish harvesters.

We must take what we have achieved in the sentinel program - a foundation of respect, trust, sharing of information, and communications and apply it to the broader science and management arena.

Because the fact is we need to build a good working relationship for all our sakes and for the sake of the fisheries resources on which so many of us depend and on which so many of our communities rely.

*Bill Broderick is a fifth-generation inshore fisherman from St. Brendan's, Bonavista Bay, Nfld. He is Director of the Council and Inshore vice-president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers.

This article is an excerpt from a speech he gave to a conference on fish harvester traditional ecological knowledge held in St.-John's, Newfoundland in May 1998.

World Forum

International solidarity network for fish harvesters

"Over the last two years the Council has been working closely with India's National Fishworkers Forum to create solidarity links between fish harvester organizations around the world that are struggling against the industrial approach to fisheries management. The creation of the World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fishworkers and the declaration of November 21 as World Fisheries day are two important steps forward in this regard."

Last November, representatives of fisher organizations from 32 countries gathered in New Delhi, India to found the World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers, a solidarity network dedicated to solving the world's fishing crisis by promoting socially sustainable fisheries.

The event - a joint organising effort of India's National Fishworkers Forum (NFF) and the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters- attracted over 120 participants representing 43 different fisher organizations, women's groups and aboriginal people involved in the fishery.

Drawn together by the threats posed to coastal fishing communities by industrial overfishing, coastal pollution and privatisation of common property resources the delegates quickly reached a consensus on the need for an international solidarity network to defend fishing people and their communities.

They proposed to form the network by bringing together membership from the following constituencies:

• Fish harvesters (subsistence fishers, artisanal fishers, aboriginal or indigenous peoples who are sea harvesters, traditional coastal fishers, independent small and medium boat owner-operators who hire their own crew, and crew members in this sector);
• Crew members in fishing units other than those above, who are presently members of organizations of the above constituencies;
• Women of fishing communities who are engaged in work in support of the fishery; Fishworkers who are engaged in activities related to processing, sale (excluding merchants) and transportation of fish.

Large corporations and allied affiliates owning fishing vessels or engaged in harvesting, processing and distribution of fish, and those carrying out destructive industrial aquaculture, will not be members of the Forum.

The delegates agreed to meet again in three years and, in the interim, elected a co-ordinating committee with one representatives from each continent and two from each of the organising members (India and Canada). The Co-ordinator of the Forum is Thomas Kocherry of the NFF while FranÁois Poulin of the Council is vice-co-ordinator. Council President Earle McCurdy was also elected to the co-ordinating committee.

The delegates also declared November 21 (the day the World Forum was established) as World Fisheries Day and encouraged all participating organizations to mark the day with activities in their respective countries.

The founding of a world wide network of fishers' organizations, in spite of enormous differences in fishing technologies used and scale of operation, political contexts, and organizational structures and styles, is a historic achievement.The challenge ahead is to extend this network, strengthen the bonds through information sharing and joint actions, and ensure that fish harvesters, fishworkers, and their communities the world over have a voice that can no longer be ignored.

November 21
World Fisheries Day in Canada

Among the decisions taken by the World Forum at its inaugural meeting was the declaration of an annual World Fisheries Day on November 21, as a day of global solidarity and fisheries action in support of the World Forum's objective (see above).

World Fisheries day is meant to be a globally co-ordinated grassroots response to the global fisheries crisis. The specific focus and nature of the activities in each country will be defined by member organizations nationally. In Canada, the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters will mark World Fisheries Day with a national forum on fisheries management.

Approximately 100 representatives of fish harvester organizations and coastal communities will gather in Ottawa-Hull on November 21-23 to review Canada's national fishing policies and propose new socially and economically sustainable policy directions for the fisheries.

The themes for the forum are:

• Democratising the fisheries
• Privatisation and co-management
• Sustainable fishing and global food security
• Protection of habitat and preservation of bio-diversity
• Women in the fisheries
• Barriers to new entrants

Both justice and common sense dictate that the solutions to the fisheries crises lie in securing the historical rights of fishing communities, and in according fish harvesters a primary role in defining and implementing the management agenda for the fishery of the future.

For more information on World Fisheries Day contact the Council.

Fishing industry remains strong despite Asian crisis

"Despite some cooling off in the last year as a result of the economic crisis which has engulfed the economies of Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the other ‘Asian tigers' the Canadian fishing industry continues to post remarkable results. The value per tonne of almost all key commercial species has risen steadily throughout the 1990s indicating that Canada's wild fishery products are highly sought after commodities on world markets.In the context of a globalised marketplace and shrinking resources the demand for these products has nowhere to go but up."

During the first half of the 1990s the Canadian fishery's economic performance was surprising as the industry grew significantly despite the major stock collapses and management failures.

In fact, the landed value of Canadian fish hit an all time high in 1995 while virtually the entire east coast groundfish industry was shut down! ¹

Since 1996, however, there has been some cooling in international seafood markets and reduced landings in some key Canadian fisheries. The industry is now facing a context where:

• the economies of Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and other “Asian tigers” are in sharp recession after a long period of rapid growth. Demand is down and currencies have devalued, and so prices for Canadian products that depend on these markets have fallen;
• the salmon industry on the Pacific Coast is grappling with declines in several key stocks -particularly coho- and there is little sign of any fair deal with the Americans on conservation and long-term quota shares;
• markets and prices have generally been strong for Atlantic lobster but there are concerns in some quarters about the high exploitation levels of the stocks. DFO is pushing for more stringent conservation measures that may affect catch levels for a period of time;
• the East Coast scallop fishery is experiencing sharply reduced landings in some key areas and there is mounting pressure for greater capacity reduction;
• the Atlantic groundfish harvest has expanded slightly in a few areas, but the recovery is slow and uneven; key stocks in the Gulf and Newfoundland's south coast seem to be doing better, while the Bay of Fundy stocks show signs of stress.

On a much wider level, the Canadian economy is being side-swiped by economic conditions in the Far East, and these trends are affecting all sectors and are battering the Canadian dollar. They do not reflect any particular weaknesses in the fishing industry. The up-side is that the very low Canadian dollar means higher returns for exporters to the US and Europe, and is making our products even more competitive in those markets.

Overall decline in landings The overall trend for Canadian fisheries in the first half of the 1990s was towards reduced volume of fish landings driven by stock conditions on both coasts (See Exhibit 1). 2 In British Columbia total landings fell by 21% over the period as both salmon and herring catches fell off sharply beginning in 1995.B.C. groundfish and shellfish landings, however, remained relatively stable. (See Exhibit 2)

     Exhibit 2: BC  Landed Volume (metric tonnes, live weight)    

               1992     1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     % Change

 Groundfish  162,502  135,071  178,245  134,256  147,970      N/A        -9%
 Salmon       66,497   84,989   65,829   48,550   34,194   45,058       -32%
 Herring      34,587   41,048   40,646   26,780   22,147      N/A       -36%
 Shellfish    31,200   27,618   26,944   29,360   29,456      N/A        -6%
 Total       294,786  288,726  311,664  238,946  233,767      N/A       -21%

On the East Coast, overall landings fell by almost 40% during the same period, dragged down by sharp and steady declines in groundfish landings. The bleak situation with groundfish, however, stood in sharp contrast with the Atlantic shellfish industry. The all-important lobster fishery reported relatively stable landings while snow crab and shrimp landings grew steadily from 1992 to 1997. The only exception was scallop catches which tailed off in 1995 after several good years. (See Exhibit 3)

     Exhibit 3: Atlantic Landed Volume  (metric tonnes, live weight)    

                     1992      1993      1994       1995      1996      1997  1992-97
                                                                               change   

 Groundfish        464,157   293,735   144,303     95,866   115,749   111,060     -76%  
 Pelagics          286,638   293,025   251,781    232,173   255,245   234,521     -18%  
 Scallops           92,078    90,702    91,402     68,467    59,534    65,286     -29%  
 Lobster            41,827    40,929    41,537     40,465    39,540    38,588      -8%  
 Snow Crab          37,079    47,734    60,400     65,372    65,768    71,301      92%  
 Shrimp             39,264    42,923    48,661     54,582    56,308    72,168      84%  
 Other Shellfish    87,842    75,802    56,090     69,204    76,940    50,747     -42%  
 Total           1,048,885   884,850   694,174    626,129   669,084   643,671     -39% 

Landed values stay strong

While overall landings were falling, landed values (i.e., prices paid to harvesters by fish buyers at the wharf) remained strong; peaking in 1995 before falling off in 1996. (See Exhibit 4)

In B.C. landed value for salmon dropped precipitously in 1995 as both price and landings fell sharply (See Exhibit 5). Neither improved in subsequent years and, as a result, the landed value for B.C. salmon dropped 45% in 1997 over 1992 levels. While B.C. salmon prices have been very strong in 1998, landings continue to be down as a result of conservation measures. On the positive side, however, the value of the B.C. herring and shellfish fisheries increased substantially over the same period.

     Exhibit 5: BC Fisheries Landed Values (thousands of dollars)    

                1992      1993      1994      1995      1996      1997      1992-97
                                                                            change

 Groundfish   $98,532  $101,158  $127,972  $117,437  $100,100                  2%
 Salmon      $191,800  $201,027  $257,485   $83,306   $96,305  $105,640      -45%
 Herring      $51,547   $71,260   $80,000   $67,500   $71,300      -          38%
 Shellfish    $62,350   $77,673   $97,393  $119,398  $119,341      -          91%
 Total       $406,221  $453,111  $564,844  $389,636  $389,042      -          -4%

In the Atlantic Canada the steady decline ingroundfish landings accounted for a sharp drop in groundfish landed values. However, the shellfish industry, led by crustaceans, performed exceptionally well. Demand for lobster remained strong and prices relatively stable. While snow crab -which sells largely in the Japanese market- went through wild fluctuations in price it still ended with 1997 values almost 200% higher than in 1992.Shrimp was also a strong performer with significant growth in both landings and prices. (See Exhibit 6)

     Exhibit 6: Atlantic Fisheries Landed Values    

                   1992      1993       1994       1995       1996       1997   % change

 Groundfish     $315,553  $196,010   $123,558   $106,968   $119,961   $120,599     -62%
 Pelagics        $69,844   $90,419    $74,144    $86,326    $88,180    $72,428       4%
 Scallops       $100,634  $120,026   $138,692   $102,950    $89,727    $98,661      -2%
 Lobster        $316,986  $298,470   $355,219   $414,969   $378,503   $392,889      24%
 Snow Crab       $61,234  $109,734   $270,181   $431,175   $218,666   $178,709     192%
 Shrimp          $81,389   $87,739    $99,205   $136,482   $145,416   $184,136     126%
 Other shellfish $26,911   $37,290    $51,017    $64,782    $64,402    $64,484     140%
 Total          $972,551  $939,688 $1,112,016 $1,343,652 $1,104,855 $1,111,906      14%

Steady increases in value per tonne An important way of mesuring the relative value of our fishery products is to track the evolution of the average value per tonne of both overall landings and key commercial species. Both these measures show that the value of Canadian fisheries products has been steadily improving. The average landed value per tonne for all fisheries (See Exhibit 7), for instance, shows that fisheries products tended to increase steadily in value from year to year for an overall 57% increase in 1996 over 1992. B.C. herring led all species with a 116% increase in value per tonne in 1996 over 1992 levels, followed by Atlantic groundfish which increased steadily in value and finished 60% higher in 1997 than in 1992. (See Exhibit 8)

     Exhibit 8 Average Annual Landed Value per Tonne - key species    

                   1992     1993     1994     1995     1996     1997   % change

Atl. Groundfish    $680     $667     $856   $1,116   $1,036   $1,086      60%
BC Herring       $1,490   $1,736   $1,968   $2,521   $3,219              116%
BC Salmon        $2,884   $2,365   $3,911   $1,716   $2,816   $3,333      16%
Atl Lobster      $7,579   $7,292   $8,552  $10,255   $9,573  $10,182      34%
Atl Snow Crab    $1,651   $2,299   $4,473   $6,596   $3,325   $2,506      52%
Atl Shrimp       $2,073   $2,044   $2,039   $2,500   $2,583   $2,551      23%

The value per tonne of Atlantic snow crab, which hit a historic high in 1995 and has since fallen by more than half, still had an average value in 1997 that was 52% higher than in 1992. Both lobster and shrimp tended to grow steadily in value and finished with 1997 values up 34% and 23% respectively over the same period.

The only exception to the trend of steadily increasing value was B.C. salmon which went through sharp fluctuations. It still finished up 16% higher for the period and, as mentioned above, saw a strong price improvement in 1998.

Wider Economic Impacts

The above data clearly shows that the Canadian fishing economy continues to show signs of resilience and dynamism. After peak years in 1994 and 1995, seafood markets have cooled off largely in response to economic conditions in the Far East. Such ups and downs are normal in most commodity markets, and do not indicate any particular problems in the fishing industry.

In the midst of these market fluctuations we should not lose sight of the steadily increasing value of our overall fisheries and the continued importance of the fishery to the Canadian economy.

In 1994 the fish harvesting industry generated $2.8 billion in seafood exports. Exports reached $2.9 billion in 1996 and broke the $3 billion mark for 1997 (See Exhibit 9).

   Exhibit 9 Canadian Sea food exports

                 1996            1997      % change

Atlantic   $1,960,487.00   $2,059,219.00      5%
Pacific      $859,285.00     $829,614.00     -3%
Total      $2,819,772.00   $2,888,833.00      2%

According to the 1996 census, overall the fishing industry generates some 36,000 direct jobs in fish harvesting (not counting the freshwater and Arctic fisheries) and 28,000 jobs in processing for a total of 64,255 jobs.These jobs generated nearly $1 billion in earned incomes of which harvesters account for over $700 million.  ³

In terms of employment and incomes, the fishing industry is a clearly a very significant sector within the Canadian economy. It is also important to note that the great majority of these jobs are located in rural communities and in less developed regions of the country where the economic impact is perhaps far more significant than it might be in a metropolitan region.

Concluding Comments

This overview of the Canadian fishery suggests three general conclusions about the state of the industry:

1. the value per tonne of almost all key commercial stocks has been steadily increasing year after year indicating that Canada's wild fishery products are highly sought after commodities on world markets.
2. the decline of key commercial stocks on both coasts (B.C. salmon, Atlantic groundfish and scallops) is continuing to impact heavily on fish harvesters who depend on these stocks.

3. there is continuing expansion in some key sectors, particularly shellfish, and the industry overall is surviving and adapting to a new and more complex economic environment.

As we move into the next millenium the challenges are very clear.

• Damaged stocks have to be rebuilt, and threatened stocks have to be protected.
• There is a need for continuing structural changes to reduce harvesting and processing capacity while maintaining the core professional fishery and optimizing employment and incomes.
• In the face of continuing policy pressures to rationalize and privatize the fishery harvesters must actively defend their access to the wealth of the sea by advocating for clear policy directives in favor of owner-operators.
• A comprehensive multi-species approach to licencing policy must be gradually introduced to reduce harvester dependence on single species and to diversify the harvesting opportunities for individual enterprises.
• Fish harvesters have to take greater control of the management of the industry to promote conservation and to protect their own essential role in the fishery of the future.

In the context of a globalized marketplace and shrinking resources the demand for Canadian seafood in the 21st century has nowhere to go but up. For the long-term development of our coastal communities and the sustainability of the industry the owner-operator fleet must become the foundation for this future.

Notes

1. For an overview of the economic performanceof the Canadian fishery from 1989 to 1994 see Creating New Wealth from the Sea, Volume 1 - June 1996.
2. The 1996 landings and landed values data for Atlantic fisheries are still preliminary, and changes in landed values in particular are expected. For the Pacific fisheries only the preliminary 1997 data for salmon are available. Generally speaking the tendency is for landed values to be revised upwards as more information on final prices paid to harvesters becomes available.
3. These figures on incomes do not include the earnings of people categorized as "fishing masters & officers".

Colophon

Research& Writing:

• Marc Allain, Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters.
• Bill Broderick, Vice-president FFAW-CAW
• Sean Griffin, Editor The Fisherman
• Aparna Sundar, World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fishworkers
• Rick Williams, GTA Consultants LTD.

Editor:

• Marc Allain, Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters.

Translation:

• MichËle Deslauriers, Novaterme

Design& Production:

• Bernier, Renauld et AssociÈs Communication et Marketing inc.

Photos:

• Sean Griffin
• Dominic Morissette and Catherine Pappas

Board of Directors:

• Earle McCurdy, FFAW-CAW – President
• FranÁois Poulin, APPQ – Vice-president
• John Sutcliffe, UFAWU – Secretary Treasurer
• Mike Belliveau/Rick Nickerson, MFU/UPM
• Bill Broderick, FFAW
• Paul Nadeau, APPQ
• Richard Gray, UFAWU
• Gary Dedrick, EFF/FPE
• Jean Saint-Cyr, FRAPP
• Rory McLellan/Donald Strongman, PEIFA
• Dave Lawrence, PGA
• Christine Hunt, NBBC
• Dave Olson, LMCFA
• Daniel P. Bernier, Executive Director

" Creating New Wealth from the Sea " - Volume 3, was published by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters.

Copies of the document are available at the following address :

71 Bank Street, Suite 700
Ottawa, Ontario - K1P 5N2
Telephone: (613) 235-3474 / Fax : (613) 231-4313
E-Mail: ccpfh@fox.nstn.ca
Home Page: http://www.ccpfh-ccpp.org