Evidence of meeting #83 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mpas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Lambert, I will turn to you about two quick questions. The first one is you mentioned 7.75% protection. Is that available on the website, those areas? Do you have a map or a handout?
9:25 a.m.
Manager, Marine Conservation Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, all of the sites that add up to the 7.75% are available on the DFO website.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Could you send this committee the link, or a map or handout?
9:25 a.m.
Manager, Marine Conservation Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thanks.
We've heard that size matters in MPAs and that what you protect is just as important, but we've also heard concerns that if the protected areas aren't large enough or right, they may not be effective. Could you comment on that.
9:25 a.m.
Director, Oceans Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, on the issue of whether size matters, I think it goes back to what the conservation objective is. As we're discussing here today, we're looking at the Eastport MPA, and the objective there was pretty clear. It was to establish and maintain a viable lobster fishery in the Eastport area. That's why the MPA was established and that's how it's been monitored to meet that goal. If the conservation objective were different, depending on what it was, that would determine how big your MPA might be. If your objective is very wide-ranging, protecting different types of bottom coral sponges, that type of thing, then size might come into it to meet those objectives. If your objective is a very focused and small one, you could look at what happens in Eastport for a good example of that. I wouldn't say one is any less valuable than the other. Certainly, if you look at the size of Eastport, it's not very big, but it's very important to the local community and everyone around it.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair. I want to thank Mr. Feltham for his very candid and eloquent presentation. Mr. Feltham, you represent the face of the people who are primarily affected when MPAs are put in place. The committee has heard a lot from the scientific community, from academia and various other groups, and it's good to get the fishers' perspective.
The MPA you're referring to, the Eastport one, is closed to all fisheries, right?
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Would you agree, for the record, that an MPA can have a very positive impact on a fishery and a community?
9:25 a.m.
Fisherman, Eastport Region, As an Individual
Yes, I agree. I said it's closed to all fisheries, but it's also closed to all other activity.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
You made it clear that without community buy-in, your MPA may not have been as effective as it has been. Do you think, then, that consultation is critical for the stakeholders developing an MPA?
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Could you elaborate a little? That's a consistent comment we've been getting, and it's something this committee has to define. Could you briefly expand on a consultation process that works?
9:25 a.m.
Fisherman, Eastport Region, As an Individual
Our consultation process took place in different communities in Bonavista Bay, but not outside it. It didn't affect anyone else, so we were limited to Bonavista Bay. We had open meetings, open forums; people came and voiced their opinions. There were people who missed the forum, and there were some who were still opposed at the end of the day. When we got buy-in from the community mayors and the councils in different communities, though, the people who were opposed were sort of left on their own.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
That's a critical point. Sometimes we just focus on those. You reached out to the leadership in the affected communities as well. That was a critical part.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
There's been some different testimony given before this committee on the rigidness of MPAs, and I believe you touched on it a bit. Would you recommend that in forming an MPA there should be a process in place to evaluate the boundaries of the MPA to reflect changes over a period of time? You did identify that the environment's changing. As the environment changes, does the MPA still achieve what it was originally set up to do, from the fisher perspective?
9:30 a.m.
Fisherman, Eastport Region, As an Individual
From my perspective, the first thing you need to do is map the fishing activity in that area. These records can be obtained, especially in the later years, and historically, there are logbooks and other records. This information can be obtained by working with fishers and with DFO. We need the MPAs mapped out because we don't know what we're doing. How much can the industry afford to lose? Can areas be moved so as to accommodate the industry? We can't afford to lose too much fishing area, but we can give up some.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
There should be some ability to constantly evaluate the boundaries.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The other part I would like to speak on is that a big issue before this committee is that MPAs are being formed, but currently there's a question as to whether DFO has adequate enforcement ability for them. As we continue to grow the MPAs, that's a part that would have to go.
In your testimony and the evidence you gave, you made it pretty clear that without the support of the fishermen.... You made a reference to 90% of the enforcement being by fish harvesters. Could you expand on that a bit, and how critical it is to the effectiveness of monitoring an MPA?
9:30 a.m.
Fisherman, Eastport Region, As an Individual
In our MPA we have harvesters who fish close by or pass nearby, close to the area, every single day. The fishermen bought into it. If you went to Eastport now and DFO came out tomorrow and said we're lifting that closure, they would flip out. They wouldn't want it lifted, because it's theirs.
I go back to the point again that consultations are very important. You're not going to get everyone, but if people can see this is going to benefit them, or you're treating them fairly and establishing this, and you're working with it, saying, “Yes we can do this, but we can't do that”, then you would get buy-in.
Now—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—there's very little enforcement of the closure in the Funk Island Deep, but most people respect it and don't fish there for certain species.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I want to go to Mr. Lambert. This MPA was established, I believe, in around 2005, because the lobster fishery had its biggest decline in 1993. Since that time, we've had a long period to evaluate. What changes have been observed within this MPA over that period of time?
9:30 a.m.
Director, Oceans Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The changes that have been observed are mainly that the catch per unit effort, or how hard it is to catch a lobster, has improved. This means better and more stable catch rights, which was the objective in the first place because, as you recall, it was because of a decline—that's where the concern from the fishers came in. Since its establishment the catches have improved.
In addition to that, the lobsters inside the closed areas have been observed to be bigger. Again, when they are bigger, they are more productive. The females carry more eggs—better-quality eggs if you will—and that maintains the lobster catches around.
