The fisheries management and the minister's office often fail to incorporate science or national policies informed by science in their decisions. This is nothing new. I spent much of my working life providing advice to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, first on behalf of industry, and subsequently, in the last dozen years, on behalf of first nations and ENGOs.
Decisions now, as in the past, are most often shaped by informal and formal DFO-harvester relations and external politics. Canada has never had—as Alaska has in its state constitution, or the U.S. with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act—an obligation to ensure decisions are consistent with a science-based management framework.
What has changed over the course of my 40-year career is that the risks to our fisheries from decisions inconsistent with good science are immeasurably greater. This increased risk is driven by the climate crisis, cumulative land and water use impacts and a decision-making process that continues to put fisheries before fish.
In the absence of legal and regulatory frameworks similar to what is in place in Alaska and the U.S., forward-thinking people within DFO, including Dr. Riddell here, who foresaw the coming environmental challenges, began introducing a suite of world-leading science-based fisheries policies, beginning in the 1990s. They are captured under Canada’s sustainable fisheries framework.
Unlike many government policies, the SSF is not aspirational. They are the bits and bites of science programmed into policy, and they often provide specific direction to managers. Unfortunately, these powerful science-based policies and the management guidance laid out within them are ignored in management decisions.
It might be argued that I am too strident in stating that they are “ignored”, but you'll find the scorecard I supplied separately showing that none of the seven key policies within the sustainable fisheries framework has been implemented when it comes to west coast salmon fisheries—none. DFO officials will argue with my interpretation, saying that managers acknowledge the policies in making management decisions, but acknowledging them is a far cry from either implementing them or being bound by them as managers are in other jurisdictions such Alaska or the U.S.
Recent examples of this failure are not hard to find. In 2019, the Canadian fishing industry, after a decade of DFO's promising to implement its national policies, was forced to drop out of its hard-earned certification of sustainability from the Marine Stewardship Council, losing important and key access to world markets. This year, the minister made an arbitrary decision to cut in half the harvest of herring on the west coast, even though the fishery was consistent with both science advice and policy.
Last year, the minister announced the closure of 60% of commercial fisheries. The decision was not founded on a scientific analysis of what fisheries should be closed. In fact, development of a methodology to decide which fisheries should be closed is only happening now, without direct input from science. It all appears to be much ado about nothing, as managers are not following through on the closures the minister committed to in any event.
Currently, I am working with a B.C. first nation organization that is concerned about the introduction of a new recreational fishery in its territories. None of the sustainable fisheries framework policies has been incorporated in the development of the fishery. The involved first nations are, unsurprisingly, frustrated and angry.
Looking back through the examples I just gave, I'm sure members might agree with some of the decisions made, based on the needs of their constituents or political viewpoints. Many of my colleagues agree with some of the decisions, and herein lies the problem. If science and science-based policy are not front and centre in the decision-making, decisions become about what’s best for the fishery in the short term or about dissatisfied pressures from one group or another, not about the long-term benefit for either the fish or the fishers.
There are likely many potential solutions, but I would suggest two practical ones.
The first is a requirement that DFO implement national policies. An independent body should report on the department’s progress and provide recommendations where progress is lacking.
The second is that an independent science body should develop science-based performance measures founded in science and policy for every fishery. Each fishery’s performance would then be reviewed, say, every four years. The independent body would evaluate whether the performance measures are being achieved and where they are not, and it would recommend guidance, along with a timeline for achieving them. It could also, if necessary, amend the performance measures.
Not only would the above recommendations encourage science to take a leading role in fisheries decisions, it would go a long way towards rebuilding trust in Canada's fisheries managers and management system.
Thank you.