Fisheries Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I call the meeting to order.

We have a reduced quorum. Everybody knows what time the meeting starts, and it's important to follow our agenda.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is our study on the implementation of integrated fisheries management plans in the Pacific region and the Fraser salmon fishery.

We have a couple of items of business before we get started with our chief witness.

I'd like to welcome our new clerk, Miriam Burke, who will be working with the fisheries committee. Welcome. When the rest of our committee members get here, I'll welcome you again.

I would ask the members to turn off your BlackBerrys. This has been an ongoing issue with translation. It's very difficult to hear when the BlackBerrys are going off or being used, so I'm going to ask everybody, whether you're at the table or here as staff, to turn off your BlackBerrys. It would be appreciated.

Mr. Sprout, are you ready?

[Paul Sprout, Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I am.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear at the standing committee.Today I'm going to make two presentations.

I'm going to start with the integrated commercial groundfish proposal. You should have a small deck in front of you, and I'm going to go through that. I'd like to start with the purpose.

I'd like to do three things this morning. I want to provide you with some background on the commercial integrated groundfish pilot project. More specifically, I want to describe why and how the pilot came about and its key elements. The pilot project is in progress, so today I'm going to provide an update on what we have seen so far in terms of the results. Then I'm going to speak very briefly to next steps, what we intend to do in terms of evaluating it.

I'm going to turn to the first slide, entitled “Background: fishery status and history prior to the pilot”. One thing I'm going to say several times in this presentation is that management of Pacific groundfish is complex. This deck is the distillation of a very complex fishery.

There are six major fishery categories in the British Columbia groundfish fishery. There's a groundfish trawl fishery, a halibut fishery, and sablefish, rockfish, ling cod, and dogfish fisheries. Each of these fisheries is separate; each of them has different licence types. There are over 50 species that we actually harvest in the six fishery categories I just mentioned. They use different gear types to catch those different species.

There are also multiple management strategies. For example, an individual quota is a management strategy. This is where a vessel has a quota to harvest a certain allocation of fish. We also have monthly catch limits. Vessels have a monthly limit under which they can catch fish, and they must stay within that monthly limit. We have trip limits. In other words, every time a vessel goes out, they have to have a certain catch. They can't go beyond that. We also have variations of what I've just described.

The significant concern in the groundfish fishery in British Columbia is the bycatch issue. These are fisheries that target certain species, and in the process they catch other species. It's unintended, but they're caught nevertheless. Previously, they were required to discard these species. A very high proportion of them die. They either die in the process of being caught or they die after being released. Further, they were not well documented. We did not have a good handle on how many fish were being caught as bycatch, as opposed to the target species--we have a pretty good handle on those.

This problem manifests itself from a conservation perspective. We have significant bycatch of various species that is not well documented. The fish are discarded, and a high proportion of them die. If we didn't bring this under control, our evidence was that we would be compromising the conservation of many of these species. In fact, COSEWIC is looking at potentially 21 species for listing in the long term. Once listed, they require rigorous constraints in terms of management. In examining this, we were very concerned about the conservation of the groundfish fishery in B.C. related to the bycatch problem.

The final point I want to make is that, historically, each of the fisheries I have spoken about were developed independently of each other fishery. There were reasons for that. We had a halibut fishery. There were halibut challenges. We developed a halibut reform. It was the same for groundfish trawl, ling cod, and for all the fisheries. Today that's not a sustainable concept. In many cases, in fact in most cases, a ling cod fishery catches fish that are caught in a halibut fishery. A halibut fishery catches fish that are caught in a ling cod fishery. A groundfish trawl fishery catches fish that are caught in a halibut fishery, and on it goes. We have to take a more integrated approach. We must address the conservation problems that are represented by rockfish and other bycatch.

This led us to a conclusion: either we reform the fishery or we close it down early. In other words, when we achieve the bycatch limitation, as best as we can determine it, we close the fishery. We know if we do that, it means closing our fisheries early and forgoing target species. Those are the two choices: we either reform the fishery and figure out a new way of doing business that addresses the conservation concerns, or we continue with the status quo, close the fisheries earlier, and forgo target fish to conserve bycatch.

I'm on the second slide, entitled “Background: setting the stage for change”. In 2003 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans outlined a series of principles to address the concerns I just noted. We said rockfish or bycatch must be accounted for, that we require new monitoring requirements to ensure that we document all harvesting, and that the catch limits for the species of concern must be respected.

So we outlined a series of guidelines and principles in 2003. We then turned to the industry itself and other participants. We said that we need to operate within these guidelines, but we're looking for advice on what we should do to address these guidelines in a way that makes sense to you and to us. Based on that, a decision was made to form a commercial groundfish integrated advisory committee. This is the committee comprised of the commercial industry--and I'll come to that in a moment--NGOs, community, the province, first nations, and recreational fishermen. This committee worked for over two years to look at potential reform in the commercial groundfish fishery. In addition, a subcommittee called the commercial industry committee, CIC, was set up. It was comprised of the industry representatives from the categories I referred to earlier--ling cod, rockfish, halibut, trawl and so forth. The members of the individual organizations chose who would be on that committee.

Those two groups had discussions over a two-year period. Ultimately, the commercial industry committee proposed an approach that came to be called the commercial integrated groundfish pilot. This was discussed in the integrated group, and it came to the minister's attention.

I'm on the slide entitled “The proposal”. The integration proposal is comprehensive, and it includes a number of elements. It is also complex--and that's the second time I've used this word. These are the highlights of this proposal:

First of all, it establishes individual quotas for all the commercial groundfish fisheries. Previously, we had quotas for the trawl fishery and the halibut fishery, but not for ling cod, not for rockfish, and not for dogfish. All groundfish fisheries in B.C. have quotas. The industry itself went through a process to determine those quotas. That's not described here; there's a separate analysis and separate information on that. But their view was that they needed to go to a quota fishery, that it needed to apply across all fisheries, and that they themselves should arrive at those quotas.

The second element is quota reallocations. We determined that we would allow quota reallocations between all groundfish fisheries. What this meant is that between the different fishery categories, quota could be exchanged within limits. The CIC said we can agree to exchanging quota, but within limits.

Third, there's 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring for all groundfish fisheries to address the catch reporting and documentation challenges I noted at the beginning of my remarks.

Fourth, all catch, including bycatch, is accounted for and has to stay within established total allowable catches. Under this regime, a TAC is identified for all rockfish and other bycatch and each fisherman has to stay within those total allowable harvests.

Finally, individual vessels have to account through quota for all the fish they catch. Let's pretend for a moment you're a halibut fisherman, so your target is halibut, but when you go out to catch halibut, you don't just catch halibut; you catch yelloweye, you catch other rockfish species. So under this regime proposed by the commercial fishermen, they said not only do I have to have a TAC for halibut, I also have to have an allocation for rockfish or yelloweye, and they all have to add up. I have to be able to account for every fish I catch. So you have to acquire the quota if you don't have it.

So in the end, you can account for every fish you catch. Every fish that's accounted for is within the TAC. The TAC represents a conservation limit. That is the proposal. Now, this was brought to the attention of the minister--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I want to give you a bit of warning on your time. We're about at the 12-minute mark, and if we could have about 15 minutes for your presentation, it would give lots of time for questions.

[Paul Sprout]

I think I can wrap up with no problem. This is the most complicated part of it.

So the minister then had a chance to look at the proposal and he approved the proposal with conditions. He said: First of all, I won't approve it on a permanent basis, but I will approve it on a pilot basis, a three-year pilot; further, I want the pilot to be evaluated each year; and further, I want the pilot to be evaluated within the year, and if unintended effects occur--for example, we see distortions or problems we hadn't anticipated when the pilot was set up--we would take measures to try to correct that within the season; and regardless, we would evaluate it at the end of the year to make any changes required for the next year, and at the end of the three years we'd do a final evaluation.

That's what the minister said. The minister also made it clear this pilot would not affect first nations obligations, nor was it designed to deal with intersectoral allocations, issues between sport and commercial and so forth.

The pilot has been in place since May of this year. What are the results to date? We know one thing: the fishing season has been extended beyond what would have happened if we had not made the changes. We're still fishing today, and based on information we had going into the season, if we had not made the changes and we had continued with the status quo, we believe we would have closed in August or September.

All fisheries have been able to secure catch to allow their fisheries to continue, so they've been able to find bycatch to allow them to continue to their target fishing. Catch accounting has improved substantially. Bycatch levels have been reduced and the conservation targets for the stock of concern have been respected.

Further, fishermen can now sell their bycatch, because they account for it. They're getting money for fish they previously had to throw away; now they can keep and sell it, so that's boosted their profit or their revenue. Finally, the value for some species has actually increased. Ling cod has doubled with the integrated groundfish pilot.

There are some important issues. One is the cost of monitoring. There are new costs to the industry. For example, you either have an observer on board or you have a camera that observes your fishing and looks at the fish you bring over your ship. That's a new cost. And we have issues around how we can minimize those costs.

It's complex. This is a comprehensive, complex arrangement, and the reality is that even for the fishermen themselves, this requires adjustments. This raises the issue of resistance to change. It is new, it is different, it does require a learning period, and therefore transition issues and flexibility are important during this time.

There is a recreational concern by the recreational interests that the groundfish pilot may make it difficult for them to increase their share of groundfish species. That's a concern they've raised. And first nations are concerned that their interests not be compromised by the groundfish pilot.

In terms of next steps, as I've noted, we will be doing a review of the season. The season will be wrapping up in the next couple of weeks for some of the fisheries. We intend to construct a process and identify participants for a review of the first year to get ready for the second year of the pilot. Based on that review, we expect to make appropriate adjustments as we take into consideration other points people may raise about how the pilot has unfolded so far.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sprout.

Our first questioner will be Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Mr. Sprout. I apologize for being a bit late.

What factors led to the decision to implement an integrated approach to the groundfishery management this year? Based on the experience so far, has the integrated approach improved previous management plans, or has it led to any more problems?

[Paul Sprout]

We believe the approach we've adopted has led to improvements. As I noted in the presentation earlier, we believe that had we not made the changes to the fishery that we made, we would very likely have closed the fishery earlier, we would have forgone target species, and as a result, we would have disrupted communities and others who depend on this fishery for economic well-being.

It's our view that there have been significant positive changes as a consequence of this pilot. That said, we recognize that refinements and improvements are still possible, and we look forward to that in the review I spoke of.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

How did the department monitor the implementation of the pilot management plan? From this year's experience, do you believe the integrated plan will go ahead next year? Does the department have data on the acceptance and the compliance with the integrated plan by the fishermen?

[Paul Sprout]

We do.

Based on the minister's direction, we implemented an in-season monitoring committee. This is a committee comprised of commercial representatives working with the department. Our job and their job was to look at the progress in implementing the pilot, identify any challenges, and to the extent we could, make adjustments in season. So that actually happened.

Secondly, it was to determine what was the compliance with the pilot. Were we getting better catch records? Were we getting good compliance? Again, the answer is that generally the compliance is very good, catch reporting has improved substantially, and we think we're well positioned to evaluate now, over the course of the next few months, and position ourselves for the second year of the pilot.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Can you explain briefly how you calculate the TAC? How do you accommodate uncertainly in the data, or unexpected variations in the weather, or other factors that affect the fish stocks?

[Paul Sprout]

The TAC is determined by our science department. They will work in some cases with commercial fishing groups and independent scientists to establish the size of the population, its productivity, and how many fish can be removed of that population. That is done across a range of species, and that's how we primarily determine the allowable harvest.

Those harvests are set for a particular year, or in some cases, for a period of time. We do not adjust them based on weather conditions, and so forth. So if at the end of the year fish is left unharvested, that will be considered in future allocations and adjustments for future seasons.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That's how the TAC is evaluated. You work with the DFO in order to establish whether the TAC has been taken this year, and if it has then obviously the TAC won't go up next year. If it is not taken, then you have a discussion with DFO on what the TAC will be.

[Paul Sprout]

That's correct. If it's unharvested, we'll go back and do an assessment, and then allowance will be made for the fact that the population is likely larger than what it would have been if the population had been reduced. Adjustments will be made to the allowable harvest to reflect that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It makes sense.

How much success have you had in integrating the first nations people into the plan?

[Paul Sprout]

That was a concern of the first nations fishery at the beginning of the pilot. They were worried about their role. They were worried that they would not be able to harvest their target species. To date, they have been able to participate. The initial fears of that particular concern were not realized, so we're looking forward to continuing our discussions with first nations to address other issues they might have. But initially, it's certainly our impression that they have been able to pursue their target species and have not been constrained by bycatch.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Have there been any conflicts, or has it produced much in the line of conflicts between the first nations and the commercial fishermen?

[Paul Sprout]

With respect to the commercial groundfish fishery, I would say that's not so much the case there. There are issues between first nations and commercial fishermen in other areas, but with respect to the pilot itself, the first nations concern was primarily being able to accommodate their interests. We think we've done that, and so far we think the results speak to that, but we will be reviewing it and we will be talking with first nations once more.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

What about the cost for monitoring for ground and hook-and-line fishery? Do you have any comment on the cost or the expected cost?

[Paul Sprout]

There is a cost that comes with implementing this program, to be sure. As noted earlier, in some fisheries where there was very little monitoring, this is the new incremental cost. But over the course of the season, adjustments were made to try to minimize that cost.

If I could give you an example, we require either an observer or a camera on board the groundfish boats. You have a choice. For some of the smaller vessels, what was eventually decided was that one camera could be distributed among three vessels, as long as the vessels obviously weren't going out at the same time. A vessel would come in and would trade the camera off to the next vessel, and that second vessel would take it out. It would come back in and the camera would go onto a third vessel.

From our perspective that's fine. We still get the information that we require for documentation. From the vessels' perspective, they've been able to amortize the cost of the camera over three vessels rather than one. So that's an example of what we did to reduce costs.

The second point I would make is that because the value of some of the species actually went up in 2006 as a result of the pilot, and because some of the fishermen now are selling their bycatch, whereas before they had to discard it, we're being advised that in some instances the cost of netting out is very close to neutral. In other words, even with the costs of monitoring being present, they have been offset by the value of the species going up and by being able to sell bycatch.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

On the point about the cost being neutral, I have a little difficulty. Do you mean the cost is neutral because the fish price went up?

[Paul Sprout]

Yes.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

How do fishermen accept that? I think they'd rather put it in their pocket than give it to paying for cameras to solve a problem.

[Paul Sprout]

They obviously would like to put it in their pocket. We would like to put it in their pocket too. Unfortunately, the alternative is that we close the fisheries early or something like that, and no one puts any money in their pocket.

What they have is something that allows them to put more in their pocket than they would if we hadn't changed. It may not be as much as everyone would want, but that being said, we think we still have room to make refinements to further reduce costs.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Is there much resistance to that? Have the fishermen agreed, or would they rather that this wasn't in place at all?

[Paul Sprout]

There is resistance in some areas, yes. Overall, though, this initiative is an initiative that has come forward through the commercial industry committee itself. The groups that I've mentioned have brought this initiative forward.

Yes, there are small groups of fishermen within those groups that I've just spoken of who have concerns. To the extent possible, we have tried to manage this and adjust the pilot to take into consideration those concerns.

It's our view that most of the participants who are involved in the groundfish fishery believe that change was required; that the alternative of closing early and for going target species was much worse than the reform; that the reform has flexibility to adjust to the issues that have been raised; and that over time we'll get increased buy-in even though we believe at this point in time that there has been a strong endorsement by most of the participants in this fishery.