Call for Federal Inquiry Falls on Deaf Ears

On Monday federal MP, Ryan Cleary, announced plans to introduce a private members bill during the next sitting of the House of Commons. The bill would call on government to begin an official inquiry into fisheries management off the East Coast.


In 1992, under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the federal government enacted a complete moratorium on the fishing of northern cod. The region, long recognized as having the best fishing grounds in the world, was dramatically impacted by the collapse of the stocks and the decision to shut down the industry. The fishery there had been the biggest in Canada and the mainstay of the local economy for centuries.

Nearly 20 years after the collapse of the cod stocks very little recovery has been seen and many questions remain unanswered.

Cleary, the NDP representative in the federal district of St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, championed the cause of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery long before entering the political arena and during the most recent federal election made the call for an inquiry a central part of his campaign message.

When speaking with reporters this week Cleary said he believes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is responsible for mismanagement of stocks and for political pandering. Cleary said quotas have been issued based on political agendas rather than sound science.

He indicated that he has had off the record conversations with DFO staff who say the science branch of the agency has been reduced to a skeleton crew, morale is horrible and science vessels are aging and in disrepair.

"Our future is threatened. It is threatened by a lack of vision. It is threatened by the absence of a rebuilding plan. It is threatened by apathy in all quarters” Cleary said.

The rookie MP is calling for a commission of inquiry to investigate the effectiveness of current management processes, the state of fisheries science, quota allocation practices and regulation enforcement.

The closure of the northern cod fishery came just 40 years after the federal government assumed control of the industry. That collapse put thousands of people out of work effectively destroying a way of life that had existed in the province for nearly 500 years. It decimated small towns and villages and sent the provincial economy into a downward spiral. In the end it was the biggest single loss of employment ever seen in Canada.

What followed was the largest out-migration from any province in Canadian history. Ten’s of thousands of residents left to seek employment, essentially crippling the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a blow from which it has never fully recovered. To this day, even as oil revenues boost the overall economy, unemployment rates in the province stubbornly remain the highest in the Country.

Fisheries activists from around the province are applauding Mr. Cleary’s demand for an inquiry saying it’s necessary and long overdue.

During his press conference Cleary pointed to a similar inquiry called by the Harper Conservatives into the decline of BC salmon stocks. He questioned why, after nearly 20 years and with little sign of recovery, a similar inquiry into the East Coast fishery cannot be undertaken.

Local speculation abounds about the reasons for this inaction by officials. Although most suspicions have never been proven, it’s widely believed that the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) which includes Canada, Russia, Spain, Portugal and others has too much influence on Canadian decisions affecting the industry. It is also broadly believed that there are far too many “skeletons” in the closet of the federal bureaucracy and of elected representatives, both past and present, to ever allow the facts to be become public.

Evidence of mismanagement and political interference will be difficult to uncover without a full inquiry.

Mr. Cleary, when working as a journalist during his pre-political career, indicated many times that requests for information, especially regarding foreign fishing in Canadian waters, were consistently blocked by officials. The reason often given for withholding this information from Canadian citizens was that it might prove “embarrassing” to the nations involved and could have a negative impact on foreign relations and trade.

Even though fish stocks have not rebounded and the effects are still being felt throughout Newfoundland and Labrador a full inquiry has never been held and it doesn’t appear that Mr. Cleary’s attempt to force one will be successful either.

Without an inquiry it’s unlikely the truth will ever be known and the recovery of stocks could forever remain in doubt.

In a press release issued immediately after Cleary’s press conference Conservative Fisheries Minister, Keith Ashfield, quickly dismissed the announcement saying there will be, “…no inquiry…(because)…a judicial inquiry represents a costly and duplicative exercise into decisions made over 20 years ago”.

When informed of the Minster’s quick and dismissive response Cleary said he couldn’t believe the reaction.

The MP cannot understand how the federal government can investigate management policies in one end of the country through the BC inquiry and not at the other end when they have so clearly failed everywhere. He said he sees Ashfield’s reaction as evidence that the Conservative government has written off the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

As an example of continued mismanagement Cleary said he believes the reason DFO has not publicized the issuing of nine fishing citations to foreign vessels in the past year alone is because Ottawa doesn’t want to jeopardize ongoing Free Trade talks with the European Union. Talks that have the potential to lead to even further European influence on fisheries decisions in Canada.

As to the cost of an inquiry, Cleary asked the public to consider how much the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost and will continue to lose in the future as a result of mismanagement in the fishery.

Mr. Cleary indicated that regardless of the expected outcome in the Commons, or the position taken by the Harper government and the Minister of Fisheries, he will proceed with the presentation of his bill during the fall session.

NAFO Approves Higher North Atlantic Cod Quota for Spanish Fleet

Here we go again. International relations and politics once more trump good conservation and science as the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) approves an increased quota for the Spanish fleet just days after fisheries scientists announce that there has been a small increase in cod stocks after nearly 20 years of a moratorium on the species.

In 1992 the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador collapsed as a result of overfishing, both illegal and legally managed (or more accurately "mis-managed"). The fishery closure devastated the provincial economy throwing 15% of the employable population out of work overnight. Many more would lose their jobs in the months and years that followed as secondary industries dependent on the fishery also suffered.

The closure led to a mass outmigration of people. In the years following the collapse of the cod fishery the population of the province fell by a staggering 20% and is only now, like the cod itself, beginning to show some tentative signs of recovery.

Now, instead of staying the course, with stocks finally beginning to show some increase, the powers that be have decided its time once again to start raping the ocean.

At its meeting in Halifax last week NAFO increased catch quotas assigned to Spanish ships for the next year, with regards to two species: cod and Greenland halibut.

The quantity of cod which Spanish fleets will be able to catch will increase by almost 180 per cent, from 796 tonnes to 1,447 tonnes.

At the meeting, it was confirmed that cod stocks had recovered - though scientific evidence shows the recovery is small and stocks are still a mere fraction of what they were during the 1970's - in Newfoundland waters, so it was decided to increase the total allowable catch (TAC).

Participants in the meeting and ultimate decision to increase the quota included representatives from the European Union, Canada, United States, Cuba, Russia, Norway, Japan, Iceland, Korea, Ukraine, France, Faroe Islands, Denmark and Greenland.

Once again we see greed trumping common sense when it comes to all matters fisheries related. It's a sad day to be a lonely cod fish in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. The question now becomes, how long before the last one is finally wiped from the face of the planet?

Winning an Un-Winnable Battle

How do you win an un-winnable battle?

It’s a question that's been on my mind since learning that the Harper government, in spite of Parliament's rejection of new NAFO amendments that could see foreign vessels patrolling Canadian waters, has decided to go ahead and adopt those amendments anyway.

After such an incident there are those who question whether democracy is utterly and truly dead in Canada and whether our sovereignty itself has been bartered away. There are those as well who will see this as the final nail in the Atlantic fishery with NAFO nations freely able to rape the ocean clean once and for all. Already, in some circles, talk has turned to the need for independence and separation from this “undemocratic” Canadian federation.

All I can say to those good folks is that they might want to consider choosing their battles wisely and perhaps, in this instance anyway, the right way to counter Ottawa’s actions is to simply accept them as our new reality while seeking ways to address the underlying concerns on a more local level.

Let’s think outside the box on this one.

Beating our collective heads against an immovable object (the PMO, DFO, take your choice) isn’t going to solve the problem at hand and make no mistake this is indeed a problem.

The Harper government has shown in the past that it has no love for Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly isn’t going to backtrack on a very public decision simply to make Atlantic Canadians happy.

On the other hand, if we could find a way to mitigate the damage, and perhaps even enhance our power position in the fishery, over time, wouldn’t that be a victory in itself?

With that premise in mind, perhaps we should consider working within this new system rather than futilely fighting it without any real hope of victory.

A great example of just such a "novel" approach already exists in the province so there isn't even a need to re-invent the wheel.

A few years ago the provincial government and some local groups felt that the Feds weren’t doing enough to protect our rivers and salmon populations. They argued and fought with DFO for a while until finally deciding the best approach was to simply do something about the problem.

As a result a number of provincially funded wardens were hired and sent forth into the Newfoundland and Labrador wildneress. A public awareness campaign about poaching was started and this campaign led to citizens groups forming their own civilian river watches.

Thanks to these efforts and others salmon poaching in Newfoundland and Labrador is way down from where it was in the past, stocks are generally improving and Newfoundland and Labrador now has far more say in the protection of its rivers than it has had for decades.

Could a similar approach work with ocean stocks? Could this be the answer to so many of the concerns people have expressed about foreign influences on the offshore?

Let’s explore the possibilities for moment.

Instead of battling Ottawa over a decision they aren’t likely to undo we might be better off lobbying the provincial government and our own people to take the bull by the horns (or the fish by the tail) when it comes to fisheries conservation.

If we can find the collective will to act we might see a far different fishery a few years from now.

Every day Cougar Helicopter flights pass back and forth between St. John’s and our oil platforms at the edges of our 200 mile limit. Provincial Airlines planes travel over our Grand Banks on a regular basis every day. The Province’s newly purchased water bombers, when not fighting major fires, will be sitting idle. No doubt these bombers require test flights from time to time to help ensure they’re in good working order. Couldn’t those “test flights” skim over the Flemish Cap just to see what’s going on out there.

With enough eyes in the air reporting back on every fishing boat, row boat or rubber duck near our waters, in a very public manner, nobody at DFO will be able to claim they don’t know what’s happening or deny that anything illegal is going on at all.

The cost of these measures is essentially zero. All it takes is the will to co-operate.

But let’s take it a step further.

What about the countess cargo vessels and oil tankers that ply our waters every day? Couldn’t they be asked, as a courtesy, to help spot questionable fishing boats and report whatever they see? It’s just a quick radio call after all.

What about fishermen themselves?

Since the fishery has always been a major contributor to the province’s economy isn’t it time for Newfoundland and Labrador to invest a few dollars into helping the ground fish stocks recover? It doesn’t have to cost a lot and the return on investment might be surprising.

Most fishermen already know the tricks of the trade. They know where the most important fishing and breeding grounds are. They know where illegal fishing is happening and they know who is involved (both foreign and Canadian). Perhaps it’s time to get them directly involved in the conservation effort on a more formal level.

If Ottawa won’t adequately protect the fish stocks then the province should set aside 2 or 3 million dollars a year (a pittance in the grand scheme of things) to pay for provincial fisheries patrols.

Why not?

Once most fishing captains have caught their quota for the season many of them simply take their boats out of the water and sign up for EI. Why not put yearly contracts out to tender seeking local captains to help patrol our waters once they’re finished fishing?

Of course these “civilian” patrols wouldn’t have any legal authority to stop rogue fishing boats or arrest anyone involved but they could certainly take a page from the same environmental activists who so often branded them as “barbarians” over the seal hunt. They could video tape the offending vessels, request official intervention from on site, provide very public evidence against violators and generally make offender's lives a living hell on the high seas.

Who knows, Ottawa might one day even help defray a small part of the cost should such a plan prove itself effective. After all, if off season fishers are gainfully employed in conservation efforts rather than collecting EI it would not only help remove the “stamp fishery” stigma attached to the industry but the effort could actually lead to savings in the EI system itself.

With enough Newfoundland and Labrador eyes on the water and in the air it might finally become a losing gamble for anyone bent on illegal fishing and I’m willing to bet it won't take long before the risks begin to outweigh the benefits for these culprits and we begin to get things under control.

As for addressing Ottawa’s new found fondness for allowing foreign patrol boats into Canadian waters, well, with countless eyes already on the water what possible excuse could they come up with for asking foreign nations to “invade” our 200 mile limit?

I began my little rant by asking how you win an un-winnable battle. I’ll close by saying that sometimes winning can take on different forms depending on your perspective.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we trying to win a battle with Ottawa for the sake of winning or are we truly trying to protect fisheries habitat regardless of Federal meddling and mishandling?

A few years ago when inland salmon stocks were in trouble DFO wasn’t stepping up to the plate. Today, thanks to local efforts those stocks are improving and Ottawa has practically abandoned its inland efforts, preferring instead to leave much of it up to the province and the public (not officially of course but the result is the same). In this case the dynamic has shifted and Newfoundland and Labrador has grown in strength.

Perhaps there’s a lesson in this for the future of the offshore as well.

Good-Bye to the Historic Atlantic Fishery

It may sound like a doomsday mentality but the truth is what it is.

The End is Near for the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. She's gone bye's she's gone!

This week the Parliament of Canada was set to debate the proposed adoption of radical changes to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) regulations that would see Canada sign onto a plan allowing member nations of NAFO far more control of fisheries management in the Atlantic off our shores than ever before.

The changes have been attacked by fisheries experts throughout Atlantic Canada, including several former high ranking personnel at Canada’s own Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) who have said the proposed changes will erode Canada’s ability to manage stocks inside its own waters and impinge on Canada’s sovereignty in North Atlantic waters.

Instead of listening to the pleading of experts in the area, or even proceeding with the planned 3 hour debate in the House that would have allowed some of those concerns to be expressed and captured on the public record the Harper government introduced a motion to halt the debate just 40 minutes in and now have plans to dispense with the Parliamentary vote altogether and simply adopt the changes.

It seems the deal is done, or soon will be, and with that decision the final nail in the coffin if the Atlantic fishing industry will be hammered home.

While DFO has itself been a master mis-manager of fish stocks over the years at least it’s answerable, to some degree, to Canadian citizens. NAFO on the other hand is not answerable to anyone in Canada and is known for intentionally allowing over fishing and turning a blind eye to illegal fishing activities off our coast.

One doesn’t have to look far to see where NAFO stands on fish stock protection. They have proven time and time again that they are either incapable of or unwilling to protect fish stocks wherever they wield their power. This was proven once again a couple of weeks ago when NAFO made the decision to allow a continuation of a shrimp fishery on the Flemish Cap just outside Canada’s 200 mile economic zone, contrary to the best scientific advice.

In a special meeting in London the organization decided against closing the Flemish Cap shrimp fishery in NAFO area 3M in spite of the fact that the NAFO Scientific Council had advised them that the stock has collapsed and that the fishery should be closed.

During a NAFO vote on the closure six member states supported a European Union proposal to simply reduce the allocated fishing days, a move that will accomplish nothing since the number of fishing days allocated in recent years have not been anywhere close fully utilized. The net result will see no real reduction in the amount of shrimp that will be taken from an already collapsed stock.

With the collusion of the federal government the new NAFO regulations will soon be adopted by Canada, giving the organization even more control over fisheries in the area and permitting them with an opportunity to someday dictate regulations inside Canadian waters as well. It seems that the time to wave a sad good-bye to the Atlantic Fishery and the serene outport way of life in many parts of the region is upon us.

It’s indeed a black day for all of us.

Time is Running Out - A Sad Saga of Fisheries Mis-Management

While the Federal Fisheries Minister, DFO, NAFO and even the Provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to battle with one another, ignore problems that can and should be rectified and pay lip service to a fishery on the verge of total disaster time is running out.

Climate change and the quest for an international solution to the prolem is a topic that's on the lips of every political figure, news editor, university student and individual citizen world wide. It's an issue that's been raised to the highest levels of power for discussion and negotiation around the world yet there is another environmental disaster playing itself out on the world stage with barely a dying gasp to be heard from anyone.

The collapse of world wide fish populations began decades ago and, if left unresolved, may well lead to the compete destruction of the planet's largest ecosystem and the disappearance it's most valuable food resource, yet this issue is not being addressed in any meaningful way, especially not in Canada.

The following contains excerpts from the article - Overfishing: Are there really plenty of fish in the sea? – published on the Mother Nature Network. For anyone not aware of just how precarious the situation has become this may be an eye opener. I sincerely hope it is.

The time to sit by and let the powers that be continue to trade away our planet's future is over. If something isn't done soon to protect fish species it may be too late to save the last lonely fish in the sea.

Read on:

Years before an economic crisis taught everyone the risks of runaway growth, marine fishermen and fishery managers were already getting a crash course.

Worldwide fishing catches grew 400 percent between 1950 and 1994, following centuries of increasingly intensive commercial fishing, but it couldn't last forever — big fisheries began crashing by the late 20th century…

Fisheries and financial markets have a lot in common, according to a study published last month, and both can collapse dramatically after reaching certain tipping points. While such tipping points are difficult to predict, there are still clues beforehand. Stock markets often behave erratically when a meltdown is coming, the researchers found, and fisheries may undergo odd fluctuations in population and body size before they crash.

Bouncing back from a collapse is also no easier for some fish than it is for financial systems. When Newfoundland's cod fishery collapsed in 1992 and Canada closed it for rehabilitation, many expected a quick recovery since cod reproduce so prolifically. But something went wrong, and Newfoundland cod still haven't returned to their pre-collapse numbers, despite a decade-long moratorium on fishing that was upgraded to outright closure in 2003.

Web Talk Note: There's the official position and then there's the actual truth.

Although the cod fishery was "officially" closed on 2003 large volumes of cod are still caught every year off the Newfoundland and Labrador coast. This often happens as a result of by-catch when seeking other species, through scientific “sampling”, becaue of pseudo-fisheries activities like fishing for the black back flounder (a species for which there is no real market. The quota for this species is primarily issued by DFO as a ruse to enable some harvesters access to a cod by catch) and through fishing on the nose & tail of the Grand Banks / Flemish Cap (a breeding ground for young cod and clearly for illegal foreign fisheries activities).

In 2006, Canadian marine ecologist Boris Worm predicted that all commercial fisheries will collapse by 2048 if overfishing isn't stopped. Although he scaled back that forecast this year after taking into account some nations' recent sustainability efforts, he and an international team of researchers still warned that 63 percent of fish stocks are dangerously low, with many still sinking.

People have been eating fish since at least the Stone Age, when anglers used handmade tools to hunt along streams, rivers and coastlines. The art of fishing has evolved with human culture ever since, but about 1,000 years ago, humans started getting a little too good at fishing. New ships, equipment and techniques let them focus on large, dense populations of marine fish, and the first commercial fishing fleets shipped out from Northern Europe around 950 A.D., sparking a revolution in the way people caught, ate and even thought about fish.

That revolution gradually spread around the world — early European colonists arriving in Newfoundland, for example, reported clusters of cod so thick that ships struggled to get through. These were developed into large-scale fisheries by the 1800s, and about 200 years and countless fish sticks later, the Newfoundland cod fishery collapsed. By 2003, nearly a third of all commercial fisheries on Earth had, too.

Overfishing may also interfere with evolution. By targeting big fish for harvest and throwing back or ignoring small ones, some scientists believe humans are artificially selecting for fish with small bodies — since diminutive fish are more likely to survive and therefore reproduce more often, they also pass on more genes than their bigger, meatier relatives. Markets reportedly sold cod 100 years ago that measured nearly five feet long, but the largest cod today are around 20 inches.

And because collapsed fisheries have only a fraction of their former populations, genetic diversity may suffer as well. In addition to the problem of inbreeding, it takes less time for a single genetic trait to spread widely throughout a small population, meaning overharvested fisheries can become populated with little fish in a little gene pool.

Straddling Stocks Report – Post Moratorium (1992)

In 1992 the government of Canada introduced a moratorium to protect cod stocks that were teetering on the brink of extinction.

This action, directly and indirectly, put over 10% of Newfoundland and Labrador's population out of work in the blink of an eye.

In the 17 years since this supposed ban on cod fishing was introduced the stocks have failed to make any real progress in growing their numbers and are still in dire peril of total collapse.

The following numbers may shed some light on why this is the case.

All the numbers presented below are based on North West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) reported catches up to, and including, 2004.

Numbers after that point are not as easily accessible but are being gathered for potential future reports.

No data is available on the level of “under reported” or “non-reported” catches in these areas so the following only includes what has been officially reported to NAFO.

For those who are unfamiliar with the location of specific NAFO fishing zones, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, which are considered to be crucial breeding grounds or nurseries for Atlantic Cod, fall almost entirely within NAFO Zones 3M and 3N.

Note: The last set of numbers are some of the most interesting.

If you assume an average weight of 7 pounds per fish, which is probably generous due to the state of current stocks, these numbers represent about 200 million Atlantic Cod reported as caught after the 1992 moratorium was introduced and up to 2004.

As large as that number appears, nobody knows how many more cod have actually been caught and sold on world markets.

Letter to Loyola Hearn

The following is a letter sent to Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn, earlier today.

If you wish to contact Minister Hearn directly about his apparent lack of concern or competence related to the fisheries portfolio, his email address is: hearn.l@parl.gc.ca


To: Loyola Hearn
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

From: Myles Higgins

July 3, 2008

Minister Hearn,

After listening to your continuous self-serving statements in the past 2 years there is no longer any doubt left.

As my dear mother is wont to say, “You’re full of shellac”.

At a recent St. John’s board of trade function you had the gall to stand before those assembled and defend the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).

In doing so you said:

“NAFO rules for prosecuting vessels that are over fishing provide the same control that most people associate with custodial management.”"We are dealing with the international community and they have rights to fish, every right. No right to over fish and that is what we have stopped. But their own countries are not putting up with the foolishness either.”

You then spoke of recently coming back from a meeting with North Atlantic fisheries ministers, and said they have not had one violation of fishery regulations this year to date.

Well, that’s great. Will your next magic trick be another vain attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of voters or to pull your head out of Stephen Harper fat ass?

The number of fishing infractions has fallen to almost zero in the last couple of years but it isn’t because the regulations you are so proud of are being enforced or because other nations are getting serious about protecting the stocks.

The reason there are less infractions is because the cost of fuel is making it less profitable to travel all the way to Newfoundland and Labrador to rape the seabed. It is also because those who make the voyage get nothing more than a nod and a wink from foriegn patrol boats belonging to their home nations. Patrol boats that you sir have turned loose on unsuspecting fish stocks, a move that was made because Canada doesn’t have the necessary budget, equipment or the will to carry the mission.

Simply put you are wrong.

Foreign nations do not have the right to fish in this area. Not in Canadian waters they don’t. Not unless you and the Canadian government give them that right and why would you do that when Canada’s fishing industry is suffering and stocks are so low?

Perhaps what you intended to say is that they have a right to fish outside the 200 mile limit? Once again you would be wrong, as wrong as a Newfoundlander in cowboy boots and a Stetson.

We all know foreign vessels are given quotas inside Canadian waters and this has to stop. In addition, if you and your PM actually enacted custodial management and utilized the United Nations Law of the Sea to extend Canada’s economic territory, as you promised to do before forming the government, Canada alone would decide who has the right to fish in that area and who doesn’t.

But you don’t want to be saddled with that responsibility do you?

Clearly you would rather oversee the destruction of fish stocks in order to appease foreign governments and enhance international trade for the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec. Clearly this is more important to you than doing your job and protecting the fish off our coasts along with the jobs of Maritimers or Newfoundlanders and Labradorians alike.

You sir were elected on a platform that promised custodial management. To compare the mess that is NAFO with having full control of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap is an insult to the intelligence of every person who voted for you and to anyone who lives within a hundred miles of any coastline.

One of two situations clearly exists in your office today Mr. Hearn.

Either you have sold out your people and are desperately trying to convince them otherwise or you are a bigger idiot than anyone could have imagined. Either way you are a dangerous man to hold elected office and an even more dangerous one to be guarding the Atlantic fishery.

Myles Higgins

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.