|
Co-management—or shared stewardship of the resource—provides
a fisheries management policy framework that enhances both conservation
of the resource and economic success for the industry.
This was the conclusion of a 1 ý day workshop,
held October 2002, for more than 100 seafood industry leaders and
senior staff from both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the
BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF). Both industry
and government committed to taking the necessary steps to revitalize
fisheries management policy in support of the twin objectives of
environmental and economic viability.
The workshop was organized by the BC Seafood Alliance
with the support of DFO and MAFF to explore ways to manage fisheries
to meet the needs of the international marketplace without jeopardizing
the first priority of conservation. Improved co-management arrangements
are one of the eight action items in the Alliance’s Vision for Modern
Seafood Industry in British Columbia developed following another
industry/government conference in 2001. The Vision calls for all
parties over a five-year period to:
negotiate co-operative management agreements
for all of BC’s commercial fisheries that establish roles and
responsibilities of the federal government, the provincial government
and fisheries interests—and provides security of access for
tenure holders.
The Workshop Program
Setting the stage was a report from MAFF on the
economic performance of the seafood industry in BC. In 2001, harvests
from commercial fishing and aquaculture totaled 256,000 tonnes with
a landed value of $644 million while finished seafood products generated
more than $1 billion wholesale. BC’s seafood exports increased 8
per cent in 2001, to $974 million with shipments to 39 countries.
In total, the industry employs 1,500 people, contributes more than
$1 billion in revenues to the provincial economy, and accounts for
more than $380 million in GDP annually.
In an ever more competitive global market, industry
needs clear policies and regulations if it is to continue this success
and meet worldwide demand for sustainable, high quality seafood
products.
Edwin Blewett provided the immediate context for
the discussion in his Status Report on Co-Managed Fisheries in
BC while consultant Barry Kauffman drew on his experience with
the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to show how other
jurisdictions have coped with the challenge of implementing co-management.
Peter Pearse looked beyond co-management to analyse how stronger
property rights in fisheries advance both protection of fish stocks
and the economic performance of commercial fishing industries. Rebecca
Reid from DFO Pacific Region and Pat Chamut from DFO HQ provided
the federal perspective while Garnet Jones of the Fisheries Council
of Canada summarized industry view. Click
here to read these papers.
The heart of the workshop was a series of small-group
discussions on the practical implications of co-management across
a diverse spectrum of BC fisheries large and small. This gave delegates
a chance to make recommendations for an improved template for the
way fisheries are managed. The groups covered four main areas:
 |
Security
of access; |
|
Organizational
structure; |
|
Funding
co-management; |
|
Flexibility and
consistency. |
SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Security of Access
Consultant Edwin Blewett identified security of
access as one of the thorniest issues to be resolved. This because
the current Fisheries Act requires that the "ultimate authority
of the Minister in matters of fisheries management must be preserved."
Many industry members, however, believe that increased security
of access is what drives the co-operative behaviour and long term
planning that are necessary for both conservation and investment.
The group discussed practical ways to move towards more security
of access including
1. Improved advisory decision-making processes
through
| Recognition
of economic objectives; |
| Transparent
and accountable decision-making; |
| Risk
management; |
| Partnership; |
| Communication
and trust building |
2. Improved public perception and support for
co-management through
|
Engagement of all stakeholders; |
|
Education; |
|
Communication; |
3. Stronger, improved quality of access through
|
Defined processes and policies; |
|
Transparent decision-making rules; |
|
Specified allocations that market mechanisms that can provide
for adjustments and transferability. |
Organizational Structure
This group looked at what’s involved in
co-management partnerships. How do we define them? How do we agree
on meaningful objectives? Who does what and under what authority?
How do such partnerships deal with others with an interest in the
fishery?
The group focused on:
|
Industry partners—the need for viable, cohesive associations |
|
DFO—reduction of horizontal conflicts, more stable tenure
for decision-makers, defining and reducing Ministerial intervention |
|
Timely decision making with mechanisms to deal quickly with
in-season issues; |
|
Involvement of other stakeholders—the Federal Regional
Council might bring together all government players; organizations
need to be mature enough to deal with economic, biological,
ecological and social implications of co-management; |
|
The relationship between IFMPs and co-management. IFMPs need
support structures and pre-season planning if they are to be
effective planning tools. Recognition of economic objectives
is essential. |
Funding Co-Management
This session focused on 12 possible funding mechanisms
for co-management that could be used singly or in combination. Given
the diversity of fisheries, no one solution should be expected to
fit all. Each mechanism was evaluated against 13 desirable attributes
ranging from no negative impact on resource sustainability to legally
permitted and administratively possible.
The top five were:
|
Access fees (the preferred option) |
|
Use of resource/use of fish |
|
Royalties |
|
Conditions of issuance |
|
Conditions of licence |
The group concluded that DFO needed to do more
work to clarify the legalities of some mechanisms and the regulatory
framework that governs their use. Clear policy direction from DFO
is essential.
Flexibility vs Consistency
Participants started with the assumption that
co-management is a continuum with different fisheries ready for
different things. Flexibility therefore outweighs consistency. Nonetheless,
equity is important even if uniformity is undesirable.
Areas where flexibility is particularly important
include:
|
Implementation capacity of associations; |
|
Payment terms and cost recovery, especially for less valuable
fisheries; |
|
Level and extent of activities undertaken; |
|
Fluctuations in the resource; |
|
Fluctuations in market conditions |
The group also noted that
|
If DFO offloads responsibility for provision of services to
associations, it has a responsibility to help them build capacity
as well; |
|
Better mechanisms for shared stewardship and shared accountability
are desirable; existing advisory processes must be improved. |
|
Government and industry need to state their objectives clearly
in order to ensure reciprocal understanding. Mutual accountability,
trust and open communication are essential. |
|
