Submission to Independent Panel on Access Criteria

Back to Issues, Campaigns and Projects

Effective Date: August 24, 2001

1. Introduction

Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW/CAW) is the largest organization representing fish harvesters and fishery workers in Canada. FFAW/CAW membership numbers approximately 20,000 including about 10,000 fish harvesters and 10,000 fish plant workers. Harvesters include both inshore and offshore fishermen including skippers and crew members.

The issues being considered by the Independent Panel are critical to the survival of coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of these communities were settled in the first place solely because of their proximity to important fishing grounds. There is no basis for continued population of many of these communities other than their relationship to the sea and the fishery resources contained in it.

2. Adjacency and Historic Dependence

It has been generally understood in the Atlantic fishery that adjacency and historic dependence have been the twin pillars of resource access. We are not proposing to unravel years of history in terms of access to resources. However, we believe in the case of new or expanded access that the adjacency principle must be supreme.

The impact of the collapse of groundfish stocks in Atlantic Canada was devastating in coastal communities in different parts of the five eastern provinces. Nowhere was the impact of such massive consequence to the overall economy as was the case in Newfoundland and Labrador. More than 75% of TAGS recipients were from this province for the very simple reason that the bulk of the impact of the resource collapse was felt in this historically groundfish-dependent province.

One of the few positive aspects to an otherwise calamitous situation was the emergence of some shellfish stocks, notably a remarkable bloom in the Northern shrimp stock in an ocean where the status quo had been substantially changed by the absence of historically abundant groundfish stocks, which are natural predators of shrimp and young crab.

We take great exception in this province to the use of resources off our shores for political capital in other parts of the country. When we went through the darkest days of the groundfish collapse we neither asked for nor received new access to any resources other than in waters immediately adjacent to our shores. It is utterly and completely unacceptable that our resources should now be managed on any other basis. New resources should be made available to adjacent participants in the fishery. The current capacity of our industry is more than capable of harvesting any resource that becomes available in the foreseeable future. New or expanded access should be granted to non-adjacent users in any Atlantic Canadian fishery resource only when the needs of adjacent harvesters and communities have been fully met.

With respect to the Northern shrimp fishery in particular, many of the <65' participants have been assigned unrealistically low quotas while other adjacent, long established fishing enterprises have been denied access to this resource. Many plants that could be involved in a cooked and peeled processing operation remain idle. There is no surplus shrimp to the needs of the adjacent people and therefore there is no basis for allocation of this or other stocks in our waters to non-adjacent interests.

3. The Northern Shrimp Fishery

We recognize that the Panel has no mandate to provide advice with respect to previous access and allocation decisions. However, we believe it is instructive to review the issues that sparked great public controversy in the management of the northern shrimp fishery and gave rise to the Panel's appointment.

The principle of adjacency was violated last year when the federal government allocated northern shrimp to non-adjacent users from Prince Edward Island, while adjacent enterprises and plants operated far below capacity.

Midshore shrimp harvesters from NAFO Division 3L - the area from which PEI receives its 1,500 m.t. allocation - have by far the lowest per-vessel shrimp allocation of any comparable fleet in Atlantic Canada (approximately 150,000 lbs per vessel compared to two, three and even four times this amount in other areas).

In May 1999, Honourable David Anderson, Minister, Dhaliwal's immediate predecessor, was questioned in the House of Commons by Yvan Bernier, a Bloc Quebecois MP from the Gaspe region of Quebec, about new shrimp licences. Mr. Anderson's answer was to the point.

"Mr. Speaker, according to departmental principles and policies, where there is an increase in the shrimp population in the northern zone, these shrimp are made available to fishers in contiguous fishing areas, if the fishers are further away and in another province, distant from that area, they do not get the TAC (total allowable catch)," he said.

"This is very clear, very simple, and the fishers are well aware of it."

"My final point is that when it comes to temporary shrimp licences we allocate on the basis of adjacency and the Quebec fishers are not adjacent to the Labrador and Newfoundland shrimp."

Another issue that's important to note with respect to Northern shrimp is that this fishery initially developed entirely as an offshore fishery. The Northern shrimp fishery was developed in the late 1970s at a time when the only identified commercial quantities of Northern shrimp were in the Davis Strait, far beyond the range of traditional inshore and midshore vessels. As a result, the Government of Canada licensed factory freezer trawlers to prosecute this fishery.

During the explosion of the Northern shrimp resource in the mid to late 1990s the shrimp moved much further south and became accessible to inshore and midshore boats on the Northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We believe an appropriate approach to historic shares of Northern shrimp is to consider the Shrimp Fishing Areas 0 - 4 as traditional offshore areas, allocated accordingly, while Areas 5, 6 and 7 should be regarded as primarily inshore areas and allocated accordingly. This would recognize the primary historic attachment of the offshore sector in the northern areas and the principle of adjacency in the southern areas which are accessible to smaller vessels.

A separate but important question related to the issue of historic attachment is the unique circumstances that occur when a fishery is re-opened at a low level following a moratorium or is reduced to a small fraction of its historic size. It is our view that these constitute special circumstances. Access and allocation decisions in such circumstances should take into account such considerations as the order of entry into a particular fishery, the circumstances under which various users gained access and related information.

4. Examples of Previous Decisions on New Access

With respect to waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, the following are the three most significant decisions since the implementation of the 200 mile limit in 1977 with respect to the awarding of new access when a resource increases beyond the needs of traditional users.

(1) In the case of the Northern cod fishery, back in the 1970s, when rosy forecasts created a sense of what proved to be false optimism about the future of the stocks, DFO gave new access to midshore and offshore users who had never previously participated in that resource.

(2) In the case of Northern shrimp, the first users were the offshore factory freezer trawlers and new access was granted to adjacent inshore interests in the late 1990s, as outlined above. The latter access decision created approximately 1,500 processing jobs in shrimp peeling plants.

(3) In the case of the Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab fishery a significant increase in population led to increased access so that the benefits of this resource could be realized by as many of the adjacent people as was reasonably possible. Prior to this increase in Total Allowable Catch, the crab fishery was limited to approximately 700 midshore vessels, for the most part in the 35-65 foot class. Since the increase the snow crab fishery has accommodated more than 2,000 additional enterprises. This latter important access decision has enabled many small boat owners with a long history of fishing close to shore to survive in the wake of the groundfish collapse.

5. Recommendations

The following comments and recommendations apply to situations of new emerging fisheries and opportunities for new access in the light of a substantial increase in resource abundance or landed value.

(1) The adjacency principle should be paramount. Existing fish harvesters who live contiguous to a resource should be the ones to benefit from an increased abundance or new opportunity in their traditional, adjacent fishing grounds. Access should be made available to non-adjacent participants only after the needs of contiguous fishing enterprises have been addressed.

(2) Access and allocations decisions should also take into account the fishing history of particular fleets and individual enterprises on the fishing grounds where the new opportunity arises. They should respect and enhance the multi-species nature of existing fleets as well as the stability and security of the independent, small scale family enterprises that are a defining aspect of the Atlantic Canadian fishery.

(3) As in the case of the northern shrimp and the Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab examples cited above, new access opportunities can be used to offset the impact of reduced fishing opportunities for fleets and/or individuals as a result of significant resource and/or market downturns in other fisheries.

(4) Access decisions should take into account the varying degrees of mobility as well as the needs of adjacent fleets. Enterprises with limited mobility should get special recognition in access and allocation of new/emerging/expanding fisheries in accessible and traditional waters.

(5) Priority should be given to commercial fishing enterprises which sustain the fishing communities that were built up over generations of fishing history. We do not share the current fetish for recreational fisheries.

(6) Fairness and equity are more nebulous criteria. Obviously, any Minister should attempt to be fair and equitable in decision-making, but this shouldn't be used as some kind of political blank cheque. Application of the considerations outlined above will require a basic underlying concept of fairness.

Arguably the most lucrative licences in Atlantic Canada in recent years have been offshore scallop licences on Georges Bank, lobster licences in Lobster Fishing Area 34 (southwestern Nova Scotia), southern Gulf crab licences off the northeast coast of New Brunswick, and offshore shrimp licences in the northern shrimp fishery. No notions of "fairness and equity" were invoked to allocate any access to Newfoundland and Labrador interests to any of these stocks with the exception of the northern shrimp stocks off our shores. Yet "fairness and equity" were cited in allocating northern shrimp to interests in Prince Edward Island on the basis that it was the only eastern province without access to that stock - a consideration that applies to none of the resources cited above, nor to any other Atlantic Canadian fish stocks for that matter.

In other words, fairness and equity should be applied in the implementation of the other, more specific criteria outlined herein, not as some subjective super-criterion to justify any political decision.

(7) New access should be granted to licensed fish harvesters to fish themselves, not to be brokered to a third party to do the actual fishing. A fishing licence should be a licence to fish, not a licence to peddle the right to fish.

(8) Economic viability of existing fleets is a legitimate consideration, but care has to be taken to ensure it is not used as an insurmountable barrier to new access. We believe there have been examples in the past where undue weight has been to this consideration. The overall economic viability of existing fishing enterprises, including those aspiring to gain access to a particular expanding resource as well as those already participating in harvesting the particular resource, is a legitimate consideration. This should include the viability of labour as well as capital, so that those who fish for a living have a reasonable opportunity to achieve at least a moderate livelihood.

(9) We acknowledge that interpretation of the principle of adjacency varies to some degree with the nature of the resource in question. Adjacency is clear with respect to sedentary species; the application might be somewhat different with respect to highly migratory species.

(10) All the above comments are made in the context of a regime of limited entry to the fishery. The current licensed fleets are operating far below capacity, and are fully capable of harvesting any available resource opportunities in the future. We do not anticipate any expansion in the number of licensed fishing enterprises at any time in the foreseeable future, but we do believe existing licensed holders should get opportunities to diversify their enterprise through new access opportunities in accordance with the principles outlined above.

(11) These comments are also made in the context of the resource conservation priority. New access should be considered only within the limits of sound conservation.

(12) Notwithstanding the furor over the Minister's access decision concerning northern shrimp in 2000, we do not support the creation of non-accountable administrative bodies to handle access and allocation decisions.

In contrast to the decision in 2000, we note that when the explosion in the northern shrimp population became apparent in 1996-97, then Minister Fred Mifflin set in motion an extensive and transparent public consultation process that include a public meeting in St. John's attended by several hundred interested Canadians from several provinces.

Likewise, there was significant public discussion and debate surrounding the expansion of snow crab access in Newfoundland as outlined above.

(13) A clear elaboration of an appropriate consultation/advisory process would be helpful to guide future access decision-making.

In preparing its recommendations, it is important for the Panel to seek to understand the industry's perception of itself. The separation of the access issue from the other aspects of Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review clearly reflected the Minister's desire to have the issue viewed from a perspective other than that of the Department. The challenge to the Panel is to provide that fresh perspective.