Atlantic Fishery: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back

Greed and Stupidity in the Atlantic Cod Fishery

Last week, for the first time since a moratorium on cod fishing was instituted in 1992, there was actually some good news to report on the state of the Atlantic cod stocks near Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Independent newspaper ran an article proclaiming that 16 years into what had been a planned 2 year fishing moratorium scientists were finally "seeing some signs of life in the stocks".

According to respected fisheries scientist, George Rose, "...it’s very exciting to see it. Their behaviour looks more like it should look — that cod are behaving like codfish, which they haven’t done for a long time in that environment”. He added that the behaviour includes fish at the right water depth, fish over-wintering, and fish exhibiting pre-spawning courtship behaviour.

“That’s very exciting.”

Rose noted however that this is not the time to start looking at the commercial potential of these fish and said it is, "...the dumbest idea I can think of". Cautioning that this is a time when the priority should be to rebuild a stock that finally appears to be coming back from the brink of extinction.

As if to echo Rose's concerns scientists at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, reported that a multi-year study into various fish species show that stocks under extreme survival pressure (such as the Atlantic Cod) are prone to wild fluctuations in population. While some years may see a large increase in population, other years will see just the opposite. The reason for these fluctuations are varied and include such factors as climate, predation and the number of older breeding specimens.

All in all the news appears to be cautioiusly optimistic so I'm sure those with a future closely reliant on the future of the fishery will do their absolute best to protect the stocks and ensure they rebound to viable levels once again.

Or maybe not.

No sooner had this new scientific information hit the media than the public was treated to the ramblings of none other than the deputy mayor of Bonivista, one of the most historic fishing communities in North America, calling for an increased cod quota this season.

Hedley Butler, who aside from being the deputy mayor is also a fisherman himself, says the waters in his area are teeming with fish. He says he understands the need for conservation, but (according to him) the stocks can handle an increased quota.

Butler says "...it's tough knowing that the stock is plentiful, but off limits.

I'm sure it must be tough indeed, but what makes Hedley Butler an expert on how much pressure the stocks can or cannot handle at this point in time?

He may be a fisherman, and as such can no doubt recognize an increase in fish population, but that doesn't make him an expert on the overall health of the stock.

More likely it makes him an expert on how much of that fish is worth and how much of it he want's to sell, regardless of the larger impact to the species or his community.

What did fisheries scientist George Rose say about increasing fishing pressure at this time, "...the dumbest idea I can think of..."?

It amazes me that after decades of discussion around the fragility of the cod stocks, after a shutdown of the commercial industry that put tens of thousands of people out of work and after the once mighty cod was nearly added to the endangered species list, someone like Hedley Butler, who was elected to protect the interests of a fishing community, would put short term greed (his own or that of others) ahead of the long term future of the cod stocks and that of his community.

Yes, Bonivista Bay may be teeming with fish at the moment but when you consider the overall numbers in the region, the stocks are nowhere close to where they need to be to sustain increased commercial fishing activity.
Those fish need to be left alone if there is to be any hope of rebuilding the stocks permanently. They are needed to help repopulate an already decimated species for the future of everyone in the Atlantic region, not pulled from the water and used to line the pockets of a handful of fishermen in the short term.

The political pressure being applied by Deputy Mayor Butler today is the result of exactly the sort of idiotic, self-serving greed that led to the unsustainable quotas of years gone by. Quotas so large they resulted in the collapse of the greatest fishery the world had ever seen.

One thing is for certain. If the Hedley Butlers of this world catch the ear of federal politicians, as they are likely to do, people living in towns like Bonivista all over this province, might as well pack up and leave for Alberta right now.

If the Hedley Butlers have their way, the George Rose's of the world, who are preaching caution and conservation, can put away their rubber boots and fish finders for good because in a few years there won't be a fish left to study.

To a politician every Fishermen and plant worker is another potential vote, and when it comes to a political choice between protecting the cod and protecting their jobs, the cod doesn't stand a chance.

This hidden message was inserted to ensure that if the head of the Sea Shepherd Society, Paul Watson, and his various splinter groups like Harpseals.org, post my article without my permission, as they've done in the past, they will also post this underlying message: They are nothing more than terrorists who prey on the sympathy of those who don't know any better.

Fisheries Minister Gambling Away Atlantic Fishery

"...instead of establishing "custodial management" beyond 200 miles as promised during the election, Minister Loyola Hearn will have done the exact opposite -- established a form of custodial management by NAFO and its members within Canada's 200-mile limit..."


The following appeared this week in the Ottawa Citizen. If after reading it you would like to make your feelings known to Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, his email address is:

hearn.l@parl.gc.ca

The piece was written by Bill Rowat, former deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans who also served as NAFO commissioner and led Canada's negotiations during the 1995 'turbot war' with the European Union.

Scott Parsons is a former DFO assistant deputy minister.

Bob Applebaum who served as DFO's director-general, international, and helped negotiate the original NAFO Convention.

Earl Wiseman also served as DFO director-general, international, and co-ordinated Canada's ratification of the UN Fish Agreement.

Running out of fish

From the Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, September 20, 2007
Special Report

International management of the northwest Atlantic fisheries outside 200 miles from shore has failed miserably.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) was created in the late 1970s to prevent overfishing outside the Canadian 200-mile zone of the major fish stocks, known as the straddling stocks, that migrate across the line that separates Canadian waters from the high seas outside.
These stocks, which have been the mainstay of Newfoundland's fishery for hundreds of years, have been severely overfished outside 200 miles, primarily by European Union fishing vessels. The stocks are, for the most part, under moratoria, as they have been for many years, and show no signs of potential recovery.

During the last federal election, the Conservative party, in response to these problems, promised in its platform to: "Extend the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and be prepared to exercise Canadian custodial management over this area."

It appears that in making this promise the Tories were not fully aware of the difficulties under international law of doing what they promised. In any event, once in office, the government changed course and decided, instead, to launch an initiative labeled "NAFO reform." This was understood to involve strengthening the NAFO Convention, but during the subsequent negotiations what has emerged is the draft of a new convention that would instead weaken it substantially.

To strengthen the NAFO Convention, two major additions were needed:

a) An effective enforcement mechanism on the water, one that does not depend solely on individual state action, to remove vessels that break the rules. The United Nations Fish Agreement (UNFA), originated by John Crosbie in the early 1990s and driven to conclusion by Brian Tobin in 1995 after the "turbot war" with Spain, and to which Canada, the European Union and virtually all NAFO members are now party, provides a model for such a mechanism.

b) A compulsory and binding dispute settlement procedure, which could prevent individual NAFO member states from allowing their vessels to overfish.

The new draft NAFO Convention, as it is emerging, includes neither. It does not provide for effective enforcement and, as regards dispute settlement, it provides only for a review system that cannot culminate in a legally binding ruling.

And the negotiations to date have resulted in proposed revisions that, far from strengthening NAFO, would instead substantially weaken it.

One such revision would, for the first time since the establishment of the Canadian 200-mile zone, open the door to NAFO fisheries management inside the Canadian 200-mile limit.

In response to criticisms by the authors of this piece and representatives of the fishing industry, the minister of fisheries now says that he will not allow this, but whether the government holds to this latest position remains to be seen. If it does not, then instead of establishing "custodial management" beyond 200 miles as promised during the election, Minister Loyola Hearn will have done the exact opposite -- established a form of custodial management by NAFO and its members within Canada's 200-mile limit.

The other major revision that would further weaken NAFO is a new provision to change the voting system in NAFO from the simple majority that now applies in the existing convention, to a two-thirds majority system. Ignoring criticism of this EU-supported proposal, the minister recently indicated that Canada will accept it.

But this change would make it more difficult, in the future, for Canada to obtain in NAFO decisions that restrict catches outside 200 miles to low limits, where such limits are recommended by the NAFO Scientific Council. Pressures will increase for trade-offs between the needs of conservation and the needs of the foreign fishing fleets. It would also make it more difficult for Canada to obtain decisions to continue Canada's current quota share percentages in the stocks managed by NAFO outside 200 miles.

The current approach to these negotiations flies in the face of the government's commitments during the 2006 election, and would tie Canada's hands for decades, without achieving any improvements in our ability to deal with the straddling stocks problem. Canada would be better off with the current NAFO Convention than it will be if the package of amendments now being proposed is adopted. It is true that NAFO should be reformed, but not this way.

It is not too late to fix this but the clock is ticking. The forces at work are trying to get this new NAFO Convention adopted at the NAFO meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, next week. This is an artificial deadline that works against Canada's interests.

Canada must refuse to agree to this package of amendments and insist that negotiators work toward a new, stronger NAFO Convention, rather than a weaker one.