Fisheries Committee on June 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to thank the officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for coming and joining us here this afternoon.

Mr. Bevan, I'm sure you're well aware of the process and the time allotments here, so I won't spend a lot of time going through them. I'll ask you to introduce your associates with you this afternoon and to please proceed.

[David Bevan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you.

To my left is Marc Lanteigne, who is the manager of the aquatic resources division in the gulf region. To my right is Sylvain Paradis, who is the director general of ecosystems sciences.

This afternoon I will speak very briefly about snow crab management. I believe you've been provided with a deck that has a much more detailed description of the biology of the snow crab, a description of some of the management processes we're using, and an overview of the economics of the fishery.

The most distinctive element about this fishery is its cyclical nature. Since DFO began annual surveys in 1988, we have seen two periods of abundance followed by declines, and then a rebound to productive stocks. Science has determined that this is simply a part of the natural cycle of this species and has little to do with fishing activity, but its amplitude could be influenced by the intensity of fishing, particularly the harvest rate.

What this means in terms of management is that quotas need to be adjusted to parallel the natural fluctuations in biomass. When stocks are low, it is especially important to adopt a precautionary approach to enable the normal rebuilding cycle to commence.

Management decisions and quota levels are guided by the best available scientific assessment and advice. That science has proven to be very accurate over the last couple of cycles. We have good predictions provided to us by science that we can respond to. In conjunction with science, consultations are held by industry on management measures and total allowable catches. It's the role of science to assess risks and to provide information to managers and to decision-makers, and those decisions are taken in consultation with those people who will be directly affected by them. In the past, stakeholders have been willing to accept higher levels of risk, resulting in limited reductions in quota, with the understanding that in the future, at low parts of the cycle, difficult decisions would be required.

We are applying the precautionary approach to this fishery. That's the method we are using for many of the key fisheries in Canada, and we intend to continue to develop a precautionary approach for our management of Canadians' natural resources.

A fishery that follows this precautionary approach demonstrates a management strategy that is based on sustainability, thereby fulfilling eco-certification guidelines and providing a fishery with a competitive market advantage. We now have a clearer picture from other years of where the fishery sits in relation to biological reference points, which are the key indicators that determine whether the stock is in healthy, cautious, or critical zones. It is clear that the estimated biomass for the 2010 fishery has decreased compared to 2009 and is now in the cautious zone. We have the benefit in this stock of going through very healthy times, but when the stock is in the lower part of the cycle, we must ensure we take a cautious approach to avoid going into the critical zone.

The science peer review conducted in February 2010 confirmed a 46% decline in biomass for the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence from the previous year's level. It also indicated that recruitment to the fisheries is expected to remain low in 2011. That can be determined by the trawl survey results. If juveniles about to enter the fishery are not present in large numbers, we know that the recruitment for next year, for example, will be low. However, we would expect the recruitment to pick up from 2012 onward.

Therefore, using the reference points, it was important to establish more stringent management measures to protect the reproductive portion of the stock, reduce the risk of falling into the critical zone in the following years, and avoid extending the current period of low biomass. This conservation concern was a primary driver that led to the decision to set the TAC or quota at 7,700 tonnes for area 12. That quota provides the best balance between providing some economic benefit to stakeholders and helping to ensure that the stock is able to rebuild.

We know how this lowered quota has affected the harvesters and plant workers in provinces such as New Brunswick and Quebec. However, the federal government has provided funding to the provinces for such adjustments in all industries, and hopefully they would use some of that to assist the onshore processing sectors.

In past years, the willingness for harvesters to accept a higher risk when setting quotas has equated to an average gross revenue of $500,000 per licence holder. That would be in the traditional fleets and not the inshore fleets. Now that we are situated at the bottom of the natural abundance cycle, harvesters must concede to conservation concerns and accept the consequences, recognizing that this is not a permanent long-term situation. The stock is expected to rebound if adequate measures, such as the ones implemented this year, are taken to allow the stock to grow from its current lower level.

In order for crab harvesters to reduce operating costs and maximize their efficiency, the department has introduced flexibilities around quota transfers between enterprises and partnering operations that will allow harvesters to make business decisions and arrangements based on their individual needs. Approximately 22% of licence holders have taken advantage of the quota transfer option, and several new partnerships have been formed. Those all allow much lower costs for the harvesters.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman. I note that many are interested in the deck we provided. If there are any questions, I or my colleagues would be glad to respond to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

Go ahead, Mr. Byrne.

[The Honourable Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Gerry Byrne]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bevan, for the deck. It's a pretty solid piece of business you have here. It's very informative.

I want to zero in on the relationship between some of the science efforts and the dramatic decreases in overall understanding of biomass.

The disconnect out there in the industry is a feeling that it's not actually plausible for biomass or stock estimates to decrease that much in one season. They're not disputing necessarily that there has been a reduction; what they're disputing is that it occurred in just one season, the inference being that the overall biomass—and I say biomass, but I'm generalizing it to various indices—or the true stock abundance levels were actually lower in previous years, but either it just wasn't picked up by science per se, or else the science did indeed indicate that information to managers, but the managers didn't pick up on it.

Could you comment to the committee on those kinds of reactions? Is what science is telling us always accurate, and are managers always acting on it?

[David Bevan]

I think we've had a long-time series of data in this fishery that indicate the science is accurate. The predictions, the trends in particular, are generally spot-on with respect to whether we are in the declining part of the cycle or at the bottom of the trough, as we believe we are now, etc. We do have discussions with the stakeholders, and they have views about the accuracy of the science.

The other thing, as noted in the deck, is that we take advantage of the difference in size between males and females and the fact that we can manage the fishery to catch only the mature males and leave the juveniles and females in the population and not have them subject to fishing mortality. As well, we have closures of the spawning areas when spawning happens, so there's more than just one safety net here. It's not just the TAC and quotas that help conserve it.

A clear debate was held over the last two years. The fishermen were saying, “Look, let us take a bit more harvest rate and let's keep the harvest rates fairly high; we know we'll have to adjust later.” They preferred to take the fish over the last two years, knowing that this year there would be an adjustment.

I think it's fair to say that the adjustment turned out to be higher than anybody wanted, but it's necessary to prevent the stock from getting into a situation from which it can't be rebuilt. It wasn't as if people were going blindly into the situation; there was an awareness that the risk of a bigger adjustment was there in the event that we didn't do it as deeply as was possible if we'd taken another course. That was done in conjunction with the stakeholders, provinces, fishermen, etc., knowing that the risk of the larger adjustment that is necessary now was one of the consequences of such an action.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much for that.

While we were at our Moncton meetings, we did indeed hear some testimony from some stakeholders who argued the point that science had redirected or redefined its benchmarks after the fact. That caused them some concerns, because, in terms of representation of those peaks and valleys, science had taken an earlier position of a particular biomass using a particular formula-based approach. When they later adjusted their formula, the mathematical calculation of the biomass changed dramatically. They're indicating that this indeed caused some serious concerns. The sense that I picked up, and I think most of the committee picked up, was that science either had it wrong then or they have it wrong now, but it's one or the other.

Maybe, Marc or Sylvain, you'd be able to comment on where that comes from, and explain to the committee what happened there.

[Marc Lanteigne, Manager, Aquatic Resources Division, Gulf Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes.

As was mentioned before in this committee in Moncton, the survey started in 1988. They had a trial survey, the annual science survey. Over the years we've refined the tool to assess the biomass. At the beginning of this survey, in 1988, there were about 150 stations throughout the southern gulf. Science was focusing the survey on the fishing grounds at that time, and the fishing areas were smaller than the entire southern gulf. We continued that methodology until roughly the late 1990s. At one point, we started to increase the number of stations as the fishery was expanding into the margin areas of the fishing ground. In 2010 there are 350 stations, so we are covering a lot more area.

The point the stakeholders are making is probably that in 2005 we had what we called a scientific framework, through which we reviewed the recipe that we used to do the stock assessment. At that time, the scientific experts around the table came to the conclusion that starting in 2005 we were covering all the areas for snow crab in the southern gulf. So we do sample the 35,000 square kilometres of the areas in which you can find snow crab. As a matter of fact, since 1999 we have had 35,000 square kilometres of coverage in the southern gulf, but prior to that the coverage was about 25,000 square kilometres. This is the difference.

At that time we decided to do some back-calculations. If we wanted to make a comparable biomass estimate from the present to the past, we had to do a back-calculation from 1988 until 1998 for a comparable biomass. It's probably this element the stakeholders are talking about when they say that science has changed its methodology. The methodology has not exactly changed, but there has been an adjustment. When this happened, somebody estimated the number of crabs in areas that we did not survey. It was the best estimate to be comparable with the present. So it did not change the quality of the survey from 1999 until now.

[David Bevan]

I would just add that I think there was an issue relevant to the risk assessment and not the biomass.

The biomass was constant throughout the 2010 process, through the RAP, the regional assessment process, and the advisory process, but there was a change in the risk assessment relevant to various harvest rates after it was revealed that there had been a typo or some kind of error that then required us to go back and call all the stakeholders and say that the risks had actually been understated.

So that was what happened in the spring of this year, but there was no dramatic leap one way or the other with respect to the biomass estimate.

[Sylvain Paradis, Director General, Ecosystems Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Sorry to add more to this.

I guess that biomass is one of the indicators we use, but we also use other indicators, like the CPU, the catch per unit effort. If we didn't have the same trend for many indicators, we could say that the biomass itself was wrong. But suddenly when the catch per unit effort is also decreasing, you can actually correlate the fact that there is less crab. The biomass assessment gives you one trend, and then the operation gives you a similar trend. There's not just one indicator, and it can be seen in the different measures.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'll direct this to Marc or Sylvain.

Would you take it then that complete coverage is better than partial coverage? Your earlier efforts were at 25,000 square kilometres of coverage, directed mostly at the strongest habitat areas or fishing effort areas, but you decided to expand that to 35,000 square kilometres. Whether or not an error was made, the bottom line is that the results dramatically changed. Would you say that bigger is better?

[Marc Lanteigne]

I would say that in the 1980s and 1990s we were covering all the fishing grounds that were fished. We were not going into areas that were not fished. We were covering all the biomass that was harvested by fishermen, so it was not wrong. We were covering the fishing grounds. And as the fishery expanded—areas E and F were not created at the time—as we created these areas, we went into these areas to survey, so we expanded with the expansion of the fishery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning.

I would like to continue in the same vein because this is extremely important, in my opinion. Of course, I'm not going to ask you the same questions as I did in Moncton, because I'm likely to get the same answers. So then, I'll focus on other issues.

No doubt you are aware that very soon, we will be examining ways of collecting the scientific data on which you base decisions such as the ones you made this year. I'm interested in knowing whether this scientific data has limitations. You mentioned a 25,000 km² zone that you have expanded. You talked about a method that has been adjusted over the years. It's a well known fact that this data is collected at a specific time during the summer. Analyses and scientific data have their own limitations. While the objective is to collect the best possible scientific data, the process will not be 100% accurate.

I'd like to know, from a scientific standpoint, what limitations your approach may have and if it does have limitations, can they be quantified? If not, are there other ways of doing this analysis? Do you encounter people who maintain that a different approach could be taken? There are other crab fishing zones around the world. Is this method exclusive to Canada? Is it used only in Atlantic Canada or do we see it used everywhere else?

[Sylvain Paradis]

I will start to answer your question and then I will let the expert address the specifics.

First of all, it is important to understand that the snow crab program is one of the most robust and comprehensive scientific fishing programs that we have. Of all the programs, it has the most resources to get the job done.

As you pointed out, the same approach is not taken everywhere. Conditions come into play. Different approaches were taken in Newfoundland and in the southern part of the Gulf, based on the way the operations are funded. In Newfoundland, a different method is used instead of trawling. Our regional researchers also work together extensively to improve methods and monitor operations.

Three or four years ago, after funding was cut to research activities, the case of Larocque v . Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) made its way through the courts. The government moved quickly to reinvest in the snow crab fishery, because the need was the greatest in this sector. Our research team in this area is very skilled and enjoys a very good reputation.

Perhaps Mr. Lanteigne could talk to you more specifically about the activities carried out in the field. In any event, this is certainly one of our more robust programs.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Before Mr. Lanteigne speaks, I would like to say something. Your credibility must have taken a hit this year. I would imagine that if the scientific data were really as accurate as that, then quotas would not need to be reduced by 63% all at once.

[Sylvain Paradis]

Let me just say that this is not the only stock to have declined significantly. Shrimp stocks have also declined dramatically. Stocks of norther gulf cod are also down significantly this year. Some environmental conditions are beyond our control. One of the limitations we must contend with is surely the ability to assess the impact of all of the different environmental conditions on various stocks.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I'm willing to concede that the situation may be different elsewhere, but if your scientific data on snow crab were that accurate, then I'm sure that, as a good manager, you would not decide all of a sudden to lower the quota by 63%. Since we all know that such a move will have some ramifications, the quota should be lowered gradually instead. That's why I'm saying that one way or another, data has its limitations. I want to know what those limitations are, in order to understand how a good manager can decide to cut the quota by 63% for a given year.

[Sylvain Paradis]

If we take into consideration biomass variability, we see that around 1996, stocks totalled 103,000 tonnes. Levels have declined to 58,000 tonnes. We do not control the extent to which stock levels vary. Scientific evaluations may or may not allow us to gauge these variations. Something may have happened this year to cause stocks to decline. Over time, we have observed a gradual decline, but this year, levels dropped dramatically. No one was expecting this to happen.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Over the years, we have seen stocks decline. Let's assume that we are confident about the accuracy of the data and that we are seeing a trend here. Certain things are noted the first year, but after the second and third years, we can see a trend emerging. Somewhere, someone decided to defy logic. If stocks decline for two or three years and then, all of a sudden, in 2010, a decision is made to cut the quota by 63%, it means that people did not really believe what was happening in previous years. This is where I have a problem with the department's logic. All of a sudden, it makes a decision on the strength of data it believes to be sound. While it knew the trend showed declining stocks, this year, it decided to take action.

[Marc Lanteigne]

I'd like to comment on the credibility or accuracy of the scientific data collected each year. I can tell you that the annual stock measurement is very accurate. Mr. Paradis alluded to the unique situation in the southern part of the gulf. Stock levels are sufficient to allow trawling and an annual count to be done. However, that is not the case in many areas. This is probably the only area on the Atlantic coast where this is possible. This vast area provides a very unique habitat.

Regarding stock measurement, we do a projection for the following year. In the case of two-year projections, the margin of error is greater, unlike one-year projections, where the margin of error is about 10%. Perhaps that is why people have the impression that scientific evaluations are not valid.

We conduct a yearly evaluation to ensure that we have a good estimate of the biomass for the following season. While many people were surprised by the 47% decline in stocks, this result was well within the 10% margin of error of our projection. It was in the lower range, which surprised people somewhat. Nonetheless, it was within the standard deviation or confidence interval, statistically speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions for the department representatives. I'll just mention both of them, and then you can spend the rest of the time responding to those.

You mentioned the precautionary principle in your remarks. I'm wondering what year the department first employed the precautionary principle in the management of snow crab. That is the first question.

Secondly, I'm wondering, if the department could foresee, even as much as a few years ago, that we were heading into the bottom of the cycle, meaning the snow crab biomass would be low, why then you didn't act sooner--even last year, say, or sooner than that--to recommend a drop in the quota. It's my understanding that last year's TAC in, for instance, areas 23 and 24 was higher than the scientifically recommended allotment. I can be corrected if that's not the case.

In other words, why leave it to this year to announce such a huge drop in the TAC?

[David Bevan]

Perhaps I can start on the latter question.

If you look at the TAC over the last number of years, I think you'll see that it has been going downwards from the peak of about 30,000 tonnes on this cycle. The trajectory has been known and the reductions have been taking place. There was a request put forward over the last couple of years that we try to slow down that reduction, as we were going through it, and we indicated that it would have the risk of making the subsequent reductions more. You can't catch it twice, obviously, so if you took crab last year, it means that you can't take it again this year. To that the stakeholders said, “Well, that's what we're prepared to accept.”

So we could see this coming. We knew we were in a downward trend and we were reducing the TAC. That said, there are a lot of safety nets in this fishery because of the fact that we only take a portion of the population, and even that portion that we do take actually has the chance to reproduce before it is removed from the population in the fishery.

So it was seen. We knew it was coming. We had talked to fishermen about the need to adjust and there were adjustments taking place. In hindsight, obviously, perhaps people would have said to themselves, “Maybe I shouldn't have asked for that extra couple of thousand tonnes last year”, and we should have moved more quickly. But we do have a process that engages them in helping the decision-makers come to a conclusion.

As long as the risks were acceptable, we could heed that input. This year--

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Can I just clarify something? At the end of that process where you say they agreed to essentially take a higher quota than what was being recommended, was there some kind of sign-off? Are you saying that everybody in that area agreed?

[David Bevan]

No. Not everybody will agree. I would imagine the committee has heard a great deal of views from people who were in rooms with decision-makers last year saying, “Don't cut it.” It's fine to say that then and to now have a different view of what should have happened, but....

The reality is that we have advice from science. It tells us where we are in the trend. We talk about that at the advisory committee. While the advisory committee is not a decision-making body--the minister is the one who makes the decision, because that's the responsibility of the minister--the minister will take into consideration input from a wide variety of sources.

At that point, the population could take the harvest levels; what we're saying now is that it's too risky, at this point, to continue that practice. We really have to get through this downturn quickly and get on the rebuilding for the benefit of everybody. We want it to be short and not be of long duration, and any kind of slow process....

We've had rules like that in the past, when 50% caught was the maximum and there were other kinds of limits, and the stocks that those rules applied to are not with us now. We've learned from those things that you have to take the decisions when the conservation imperative is there.

I believe this is the first crab stock we've applied the precautionary process to, but it's not the first stock that's been subject to it. We've done numerous stocks before this.