|
Positions
On Issues
|
Member organizations of the BC Seafood Alliance
represent both First Nations and non-First Nations investors in
the commercial seafood industry in BC. Collectively, they account
for about 90 per cent of the seafood produced in British Columbia.
The Alliance understands and accepts that there will be increased
access to fisheries and marine resources for First Nations both
inside and outside the treaty process. We want to draw the attention
of both federal and provincial governments to the need to ensure
that this increased access takes place fairly and equitably in a
way that assures both conservation and economic viability. We fear
that current policies are leading to an industry that is not sustainable,
not competitive, and not profitable for any operator, First Nations
or otherwise. A worthless fishery is a worthless fishery whoever
has the right to fish it.
The BCSA has four key principles to guide development
of the seafood industry: conservation, environmental sustainability,
market responsiveness and security of access. Long-term uncertainty
is currently a significant deterrent to investment in the development
of sustainable seafood resources in BC. Governments must ensure
certainty of access as well as a responsive and progressive regulatory
and policy environment in all aspects of seafood production. Our
vision for a modern seafood industry in BC calls for
a) a positive business
climate for all seafood businesses in BC-whether they be individual
operators, companies or First Nations-that encourages investment
in future development. This requires greater security of access
and implementation of policies that ensure any new access to
capture fisheries be retired with compensation out of existing
fishery access; and
b) an industry that
can count on government to ensure that all commercial fishing,
aquaculture, and seafood processing interests in British Columbia
are regulated by a single, non-discriminatory management and
legislative framework that does not create unfair advantage
for some businesses over their competitors.
The practical consequences of both provincial
and federal current policy appears to be leading us in the opposite
direction entirely-to a patchwork of separate fisheries regulated
differently with inconsistent conservation requirements, licence
requirements, access fees, gear restrictions, timing of harvest,
safety requirements, food safety inspection and regulatory enforcement.
If this policy continues, we could see 30 or more different management
regimes for some commercial fisheries on the BC coast. This balkanization
of commercial fisheries management would jeopardize conservation
and destroy the economic wealth the fishery can provide.
While the first examples of separately managed
First Nations commercial fisheries in BC go back to the creation
of "pilot sales" agreements in 1992, a look at the current
situation with spawn on kelp (SOK) is particularly instructive since
it exemplifies the problems with the lack of clarity over new access.
The SOK commercial fishery is a 90 per cent First Nations fishery.
In 2001, the federal government with the agreement of the provincial
government at the time expanded the limited entry SOK fishery by
allowing the Heiltsuk band to produce an extra 96,000 lbs (or the
equivalent of six more licences) on their existing licences. The
deal also allowed the Heiltsuk to operate their licences under different
terms and conditions (including increased quotas and reduced monitoring)
from other licence holders. Existing licences were not bought out
in this expansion and there was no consultation with the Spawn on
Kelp Operators Association (SOKOA). The consequence of this expansion-on
top of a previous ill-considered one-was significant disruption
in the sole market for SOK compounded by the inability for the producers
to respond to structural change in that market. Over the course
of the two expansions, both landed value and the value of licences
have declined sharply. Separate and different rules for catch monitoring
and exceeding quota also have serious implications for conservation
while the lack of consultation has undermined the co-management
arrangement negotiated in good faith by SOKOA.
To avoid this kind of disastrous prospect, there
must be an equitable and transparent means to transfer fishing allocation
to First Nations, one that pays fair, market-based compensation
for existing licences without disadvantaging First Nations in their
commercial operations. Any obligation to provide increased access
for First Nations should not be borne by the existing industry (First
Nations or non-First Nations) or by First Nations bands and communities,
but by all Canadians. Similarly, the transfer of allocation should
not result in separate fisheries as this results in a devaluing
of the fishery for all. And all fisheries should be managed to the
same conservation standards-different conservation requirements
in the same fishery are simply unacceptable and contrary to the
first principle of Canadian fisheries management.
A comparison with the successful New Zealand seafood
sector demonstrates how security of access is fundamental to both
conservation and investment. In New Zealand, recent treaty settlements
for commercial fishing were accomplished by purchasing non-Maori
fishing businesses and transferring them to the Maori for operation
as part of the existing commercial industry. In terms of access
and management, the Maori are treated in exactly the same way as
other commercial participants. They own their own regular commercial
quota and fish it in common with non-Maori quota holders. Their
equivalent of our "food, social and ceremonial" fishery
is a separate, non-commercial activity. The result is a market-driven,
extremely successful industry that draws investment from around
the world and invests in turn in other countries. This is the model
that governments should be trying to adapt to British Columbia.
Instead we have an inconsistent, patchwork approach that can only
result in a cottage industry that will always be a drain on the
public treasury rather than a sustainable, profitable industry that
contributes to the wealth of communities and the province.
|
