This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Follow-up petition on fishing practices and sensitive fish habitat in the ocean

Petition

January 12, 2005

Sent Via Courier

Johanne Gélinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Office of the Auditor General and
Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development
240 Sparks St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

Dear Ms. Gélinas:

Re: An Environmental Petition to the Auditor General and Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

On behalf of our clients the Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society and the Fisheries Recovery Action Committee we submit this document as a formal petition under the Auditor General Act relating to the sustainability of Canada's bottom trawl or dragger fishery.

The petitioner Ecology Action Centre (EAC) is non-profit society incorporated in Nova Scotia with an active membership of over 700 people. It is the mission of the EAC to encourage a society in Nova Scotia which respects and protects nature and also provides environmentally and economically sustainable jobs for its citizens.

The petitioner Fisheries Recovery Action Committee is a committee of fishermen, academics, and environmentalists, in Newfoundland which formed to advocate for the re-establishment of sustainable commercial fisheries in Newfoundland.

The petitioner Living Oceans Society (LOS) is a non-profit society incorporated in British Columbia. It is the mission of LOS to promote the need for a healthy oceans and healthy communities on Canada's Pacific Coast.

The petitioners pose a series of questions to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans relating to the sustainability of the Canadian groundfish fishery and protection of the marine environment. These questions appear in Part II of the document and are accompanied by relevant background information (Part I) and supporting documentation (Part III and IV*).

We have included some supporting documentation as a series of appendices at the end of the document. Should you wish further or more detailed information or background information on this important issue, please contact me directly at 604-685-5618 ext. 245.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter.

Respectfully,

[Original signed by Margot Venton]

Margot Venton
Counsel for the Petitioners

ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION TO THE AUDITOR GENREAL
Re: SUSTAINABILITY AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF CANADIAN
GROUNDFISH FISHERY

January 10, 2005

To: The Hon. Sheila Fraser
Auditor General of Canada
Johanne Gélinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Office of the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6
(Fax: 613-954-0696)

And to: The Hon. Geoff Regan
Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Parliament Buildings, Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Petitioners:
Ecology Action Centre
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Fisheries Recovery Action Committee
St. John's, Newfoundland

Living Oceans Society
Sointula, British Columbia

Prepared by:
Margot Venton, Staff Lawyer

Sierra Legal Defence Fund
214-131 Water Street
Vancouver, BC
Tel. 604-685-5618 ext 245
Fax. 604-685-7813

Petition Outline

Petition to the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development

Cover Letter

I)  Background information

a. Overview
b. Scientific progress
c. The Federal Government's responsibility to protect fish habitat
d. Canada's international commitment to protect of fish habitat

II)  Petitioners Request

III)  References

IV)  Supporting information*:

Appendix 1: Excerpt of testimony from Jorgen Hansen, Fisheries Manager (EAC v. Attorney General)

Appendix 2: Bibliography of Selected References on the Importance of Habitat for Juvenile Fish Survival

Appendix 3: Scientists Statement on Protecting the World's Deep Sea Corals and Sponge Ecosystems

Appendix 4: DFO Press release "AFAP Helps Fishermen Switch to Conservationist Gear"

Appendix 5: ICES Report from the Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment

Appendix 6: Executive Summary from National Academy of Sciences Report on the Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat.

Appendix 7: IUCN Resolution on Bottom Trawling on the High Seas and Canada's Response

I)  BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A)  Overview

Crashing cod stocks, disappearing salmon, large fish species on the brink of extirpation and in some cases extinction have in turn been major headlines in newspapers around the world in the last decade. They are also undeniable indicators of the widespread decline of global fisheries.

In Canada, bottom trawling is an issue of concern in both the Atlantic and Pacific regions and, as we turn our sights north in search of new resources, an emerging issue in the Arctic region. Increasingly, coastal communities are faced with declining stocks and the fear that fishing is no longer a viable way of life for their sons and daughters. As our commercial fisheries decline, technology, such as the use of rock hopper gear, has expanded to increase access to a dwindling number of fish. This means that we are fishing in places that we have not fished in the past, often with little or no consideration of the cumulative impact of such expansion on already stressed marine ecosystems. Worse yet, new areas are often opened to fishing before there is any scientific study or risk assessment of these new fisheries.

The decline in the health of our fisheries has resulted in fisheries management practices which focus on the reduction of fishing effort and stock rebuilding. This has been realised in Canada through moratoria on several groundfish species in the Northwest Atlantic. In British Columbia, the only dramatic decrease in the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) has been for salmon, despite concerns that groundfish stocks are in trouble on our Pacific Coast as well. On both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, fishing license buy back programs designed to reduce the number of people dependent on the fishery have occurred. Despite these efforts, stocks continue to be unstable and predictions of the future of our fishery uncertain.

Limited management attention has been given to protecting fish habitat and ocean biodiversity as a means of rejuvenating the fishery. There has been relatively little Canadian research on the effects of fishing on the sea floor and little to no recognition of fish habitat in management decisions. Current fisheries management practices do not appear to take into consideration gear type and its impact on fish habitat and subsequent impacts on commercial fish stocks.

While the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's sustainable development framework (DFO 1997) asserts that, "without habitat, there is no fish", current fisheries management within Canadian waters does not appear to include healthy habitat as one of its objectives. Apart from small-scale fisheries closures, fisheries managers have taken no comprehensive measures under the Fisheries Act to protect the sea floor and the associated organisms from the impacts of dragging. A senior fisheries manager recently stated that neither does he consider habitat when making fisheries and stock management decisions nor does he receive advice from other branches on fishing and its impact on habitat (Appendix 1*).

By ignoring the importance of fish habitat and the threats that fishing methods pose there to, the DFO is ignoring an increasingly glaring threat to the long term productivity of our oceans, the sustainability of our fishing industry and the long term viability of fishing dependent coastal communities throughout Canada.

From an international perspective Canada's position on this issue is at best indefensible. At a time in which organizations such as the World Conservation Union (IUCN) are calling for restrictions and moratoria on bottom trawling, Canada refuses even to acknowledge the differential impact of various types of fishing gear, stating that, "no one gear type is more destructive than another."

The recognition that sustaining fish habitat is an integral part of sustainable fisheries has led to significant action in other countries. Norway has closed large areas of deep sea coral to trawling and other areas are open only to hook and line fishing gear. The National Marine Fisheries Council in the United States is legally required to designate essential fish habitat for all commercially exploited species. Significant areas in US coastal waters have been closed to bottom trawling in New England, Alaska, and now in California. In Australia fisheries managers have closed a series of seamounts to future trawling in recognition of their importance as fish habitat (Sainsbury 1987). A recent review of management measures taken to protect fish habitat in Australia and New Zealand states:

Fisheries management can no longer attempt to simply maximize yield, while ignoring the impacts of fishing on habitat structure and heterogeneity. Even low fishing mortalities will have a profound effect on habitat when caused by gear such as bottom trawls.

A recent report on the relative impacts of various types of fishing gear (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003) includes the results of an expert panel and a survey of fishermen which ranks the effects of fishing gear, and concludes that the otter trawl is the most destructive gear type, and that in many instances alternatives to otter trawls can be used. In addition to preventing damage to fish habitat, there are benefits to the fish stocks and socio-economic advantages as well.

For the past three years the Ecology Action Centre has been in litigation with the federal government seeking to compel the government to consider the impact that fishing gear has on the ocean floor. The outcome of that case clearly places the ability and responsibility to protect fish habitat exclusively in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

This petition seeks answers to the question: how does DFO intend to respond to the challenge of protecting fish habitat and the fishery on which it depends in the face of mounting and near unanimous evidence that certain types of fishing gear - namely bottom trawling gear, have a differential, significant, and harmful impact on the ocean floor and therefore on the entire web of life which depend on the ocean floor for survival (Appendix 2*).

B)  Emerging scientific consensus on the importance of fish habitat and the impacts of bottom trawling

In the past ten years, there have been hundreds of scientific studies and experiments, leading to the publication of primary literature papers, edited book volumes and government reports, all addressing the impacts of bottom trawling on the sea floor. This work collectively illustrates that industrial fishing, especially bottom trawling, is affecting the complexity, and therefore the health, of our global oceans. While the degree of the negative impact may vary with the intensity and duration of trawl induced disturbance, there are no published studies that conclude that bottom trawling has no effect on marine biodiversity. In a Canadian context this means that fishing with mobile gear - be it trawls or dredges - is having an impact on those marine environments.

In addition to removing enormous quantities of biomass from the oceans (Myers and Worm 2003), in the form of saleable fish and unintentional bycatch, and altering the marine food web, industrial fishing practices have had a marked effect on the organisms and structure on the sea floor. Scientific investigation into the effects of fishing on the sea floor has lead to a general consensus that fishing through trawling and dredging reduces habitat complexity (and therefore marine biodiversity), alters size spectra of benthic species, causes significant mortality in large sessile epifauna and re-suspends sediment which has indirect effects on suspension feeding organisms (for review see Thrush and Dayton 2002).

In the field of biodiversity conservation and marine habitat ecology, as well as certain sectors of fisheries science, it is generally accepted that the destruction of fish habitat by fishing gear is one of the greatest threats to marine biodiversity (see reviews by Watling and Norse 1998, Turner et al. 1999, Thrush and Dayton 2002, NAS 2002).

In a meta-analysis of 39 published studies on the effects of fishing gear on the sea floor, Collie et al. 2001 show that on average, 50 percent of benthic animals are removed as a result of trawling or dredging with the extent of damage dependent on the types of organisms, bottom substrate and fishing method.

In summarizing the big picture threat such fishing poses to marine ecosystems and communities and the recovery of global fish stocks, Hall (1999) makes the following observation:

The final and perhaps most compelling mechanism leading to potentially irreversible effects is habitat destruction. With the exception of continued unrestrained exploitation, removing habitat that is utilised by fish stocks is perhaps the single most effective way of slowing or preventing stock recoveries.

There is increasing demand within the global scientific community that complex biological habitats be protected. In February 15, 2004 1,336 scientists collectively released a statement requesting the United Nations and the governments of all coastal nations to protect imperilled corals and sponge ecosystems from the immediate threat posed by commercial fishing, especially bottom trawling (Appendix 3*). These corals are important and ancient reservoirs of marine biodiversity and are essential nursery habitats for many commercially important fish species (UNEP Cold Water Corals Report. Friedwald, Fossa (2004)).

Corals are not alone in being important habitat for fish species. Most benthic or bottom dwelling species and structures provide refuge from predation (Lindholm et al 1999, Stoner and Titgen 2003 and see Appendix 2*), places to deposit eggs (Konecki and Targett 1989, Barthel 1997), and areas of increased food availability (Bradstock and Gordon 1983).

Studies on the effects of trawling and dredging in Canadian waters have occurred in the Bay of Fundy (Brylinsky et al. 1994), the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (Kenchington et al. 2001), the edge of Georges Bank (Collie et al. 1997), and more recently the Scotian Shelf (DFO unpublished research). These studies show variable effects, dependent on the sediment type and water depth, which range from the removal of structure forming epifaunal species to reduction in size structure of bivalve species. Recovery times in these various areas are also dependent on sediment type, and indicate that different habitats are affected in diverse ways, suggesting that management decisions need to be flexible to reflect ecosystem diversity. There is a notable lack of studies in Canadian waters of the role of deep-water coral and sponge communities in maintaining marine diversity and commercial fish populations, despite the dense patches of these animals on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

This is not an exhaustive review of the relevant science, but a précis of the global scientific evidence and concern about the effect of fishing on sea floor habitat.

C)  The Federal Government's responsibility to protect fish habitat

Fisheries and the protection of the marine environment are exclusive areas of federal responsibility under the Canadian constitution. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is charged with the overarching responsibility for the conservation and management of the fisheries resource and the implementation and enforcement of the Fisheries Act, and Oceans Act. Additionally, the Federal government, as guardian of the public interest in the environment has a responsibility to protect the marine environment on behalf of all Canadians. Our Supreme Court of Canada, in British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (2004 SCC 38), recently suggested that this trust like responsibility includes a positive duty to ensure environmental protection. Many aspects of this responsibility are spelled out in specific obligations codified in Canadian law and fisheries policy. None of these statutes take away or replace the overarching constitutional responsibility of the federal government to protect fisheries and the marine environment.

Canadian law and policy recognize the importance of fish habitat and provides mechanisms for its conservation and protection. Despite this fact little has been done to implement these mechanisms in the context of management of marine fisheries other than salmon. Canadian fisheries management decisions consistently fail to incorporate considerations of fish habitat. DFO continues to ignore or downplay the threat that bottom trawling poses to fish habitat - refusing to acknowledge or respond to the clear evidence that bottom trawl gear has a greater overall impact on fish habitat than other fishing gear.

In the Preamble to Canada's Oceans Act, it is stated that "Canada holds that conservation, based on an ecosystem approach, is of fundamental importance to maintaining biological diversity and productivity in the marine environment" and "Canada promotes the wide application of the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment". The Oceans Act provides for legal designation of protected areas and gives legislative weight to management policies that are based on precaution and are in the best interest of the marine environment. The integrated management provisions of the Act also provide DFO with legislative tools to restrict or minimize the impact of dragging on the sea floor.

The Oceans Act was adopted by Parliament in 1996. In the near decade since its adoption almost nothing has been done to implement its provisions. The commercial fishery continues to be exclusively regulated under the Fisheries Act despite is clearly inferior provisions.

While there have been instances of management action and government incentives to address the impact of dragging on the marine environment, they have been limited in their success and scope. In November 1990 the Federal government offered assistance programs to convert trawling gear to bottom tending longline gear (see Appendix 4*). To our knowledge the program did not result in the conversion of vessels from otter trawls to longliners. More recently, sponge bioherms on the west coast and deep sea corals on the east coast have been protected from fishing gear through closures under the Fisheries Act. Though important for the particular features they seek to protect, these measures are insignificant in the face of the widespread and continued destruction of fish habitat and the lack of action on the part of DFO to address the impacts of dragging on the marine ecosystem generally.

D)  Canada's international commitment to protect fish habitat

As a member of the international community and a nation that shares its waters with foreign fishing fleets, Canada is a signatory to numerous agreements, conventions and declarations created to ensure sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biodiversity. Moreover, it is the emerging position of the international scientific and conservation communities that bottom dragging is destructive of marine biodiversity and must be strictly managed and controlled.

NAFO and ICES

Canada belongs to both the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). These organizations are created to ensure that appropriate fisheries management and research occurs to manage fisheries in international waters. In 1999, the first meeting of the ICES Working Group on the Effects of Fishing on the Seafloor, convened in Montpelier, France, made the following recommendation to protect fish habitat (attached as Appendix 5*):

1) Reduce fishing effort

2) Create marine reserves

3) Encourage gear substitution and modification

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences reached this same conclusion and made this same recommendation in its 2002 report on fishing gear (attached as Appendix 6*).

Convention on Biodiversity (1992)

As a signatory of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (1992) (CBD), Canada has an obligation to both its citizens and to the international community to protect biodiversity. As habitat loss is the primary threat to species survival on a global level, protection of fish habitat is one of the responsibilities of the federal government as a signatory of the CBD.

United Nations Convention on Highly Migratory and Straddling Stocks (UNFA) (1994)

The purpose of UNFA is to ensure the conservation and sustainability of straddling (the 200-mile limit) stocks and highly migratory species. According to that Convention the principles of the precautionary approach and the best available science are to be used in fisheries management.

World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002)

A commitment was made by Canada and the international community to maintain or restore depleted fish stocks to sustainable levels by 2015. There is a broad mandate in achieving this goal, including the development of a network of marine reserves, elimination of subsidies to highly industrialized fisheries and the elimination of destructive fishing practices.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

At the recent World Conservation Congress in Bangkok Thailand in November 2004 the IUCN or World Conservation Union produced a recommendation that the United Nations General Assembly place an interim moratorium in 2005 on bottom trawling on the high seas until a legally binding management regime is established to conserve deep-sea biodiversity from the impacts of such fishing activity. It was further recommended that in 2006 the UN call for a similar interim moratorium in areas covered by regional fisheries management organizations.

Unfortunately, Canada's continuous commitment to the world to protect the marine environment under our jurisdiction has failed to transform itself into concrete action on the ground to protect fish habitat. Of greater concern is Canada's most recent statements in opposition to the IUCN position in which we appear to be asserting our strength as a wealthy industrialized fishing nation to subvert the recommendations of the IUCN.

II)  QUESTIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS AND HONORABLE MINISTER GEOFF REGAN

In light of the scientific research on the effects of fishing on fish habitat, the existing national and international legislation requiring Canada to protect fish habitat and marine biodiversity and Canada's on-paper commitment to sustainable fisheries, we respectfully petition the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Sustainable Development to ask the Fisheries Minister, Hon. Geoff Regan, for his responses to the following questions:

1.  Is there a law in Canada that protects fish habitat from destructive fishing practices and fishing gear? If yes, then what is that law?

2.  How is the Canadian Policy for the Management of Habitat Protection applied in the context of marine ecosystems?

3.  Why are Canadian fisheries not managed under the more comprehensive Oceans Act? When will integrated management plans under the Oceans Act be completed?

4.  When DFO opens a new area to fishing or licences a new fishery, does it consider the impacts on habitat of that new fishery or encourage the use of the least destructive gear type in that new area? Does DFO consider gear type when allocating quotas?

5.  When exploratory licences for developing fisheries are issued, is there a process to determine whether or not these fisheries are occurring in areas that have not yet been fished with bottom trawling gear?

6.  When fishing effort is reduced why is priority not given to less destructive gear types in the allocation of the remainder of the quota?

7.  Does DFO rank or otherwise evaluate gear types in terms of their effects on marine ecosystem in Canadian waters?

8.  We are told that when management decisions are made, fish habitat is not considered, how is this consistent with your constitutional responsibility to protect fish habitat and the marine environment?

9.  What is the process by which fisheries managers are informed about the importance and values of fish habitat?

10.  What is your estimate of the area of Canadian waters that is subject to bottom fishing gear including bottom trawls, shrimp beam trawls, scallop dredges and hydraulic clam dredges? On what basis do you make this estimate?

11.  How much money is allocated to marine habitat protection under DFO's budget? What percentage of that budget does this figure represent? How much of that money is dedicated to research?

12.  What is the trawl survey protocol for quantifying and mapping non- commercial structure habitat forming species?

13.  Has there been a final report and audit of the 1991 gear substitution program? If so, how many boats actually were converted from trawl to longlining? What is the current status of this initiative?

14.  Given that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans maintains that "conservation comes first" and that "without habitat there are no fish" is there a long-term strategy as to how to operationalize these claims with respect to Canada's marine fisheries?

15.  How does DFO define sensitive fish habitat? What activities does DFO consider to "effect" marine fish habitat?

16.  Why has DFO never conducted an environmental assessment of bottom tending gear either regionally or for specific fisheries?

III)  REFERENCES

Barthel, D. 1997. Fish eggs and pentacrinoids in Weddell Sea hexactinellids: father examples for the structuring role of sponges in Antarctic benthic ecosystems. Polar Biology 17:91-94.

Bradstock, M. and D.P. Gordon. 1983. Coral like bryazoan growths in Tasman Bay and their protection to conserve commercial fish stocks. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 17:159-163.

Brylinsky, M., J. Gibson and D.C. Gordon 1994. Impacts of flounder trawls on the intertidal habitat and community of the Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy

Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero and P.C. Valentine. 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 155:159-172

Collie, J.S., S.J. Hall, M.J. Kaiser and I.R. Poiner. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:785-798

Hall, S.J. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Kenchington, E.L.R, J. Prena, K.D. Gilkinson, D.C. Gordon, K. MacIsaac, C. Bourbonnais, P.J. Schwinghamer, T.W. Rowell, D.L. McKeown and W.P Vass. 2001. Effects of experimental otter trawling on the macrofauna of a sandy bottom ecosystem on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 58(6):1043-1057

Konecki, J.T. and T. E. Targett. 1989. Eggs and larvae of Nototheniops larseni from the spongocoel of a hexactinellid sponge near Hugo Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology 10: 197-198.

Morgan, L.E and R. Chuenpagdee 2003. Shifting Gears: Addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. Waters. Pew Science Series. Island Press Publications Series. 24p.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging sea floor habitat.

Sainsbury, K.J. 1987. Assessment and management of the demersal fishery on the continental shelf of northwestern Australia. In Tropical Groupers and Snappers: Biology and Fisheries Management. J.J. Polivina and S. Ralston, eds. Westview Press p. 465-498

Schwinghamer,P., D.C. Gordon, Jr., T.W. Rowell, J. Prena, D.L. McKeown, G. Sonnichsen and J.Y. Giugnes. 1998. Effects of experimental otter trawling on surficial sediment properties of a sandy bottom ecosystem on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Conservation Biology 12(6):1215-1222

Stoner, A.W and R.H. Titgen. 2003. Biological structures and bottom type influence habitat choices made by Alaska flatfishes. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 292:43-59.

Thrush, S, and P.K. Dayton. 2002. Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging - implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:449-473.

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: a comparison with forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology 12(6): 1-19

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

June 1, 2005

Ms. Margot Venton
Staff Lawyer
Sierra Legal Defence Fund
131 Water Street, Suite 214
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6B 4M3

Dear Ms. Venton:

This is in response to the petition dated January 12, 2005 and submitted by the Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society and the Fisheries Recovery Action Committee to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has reviewed this petition and would like to provide you with a response in a Question and Answer format (please refer to Annex A).

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Geoff Regan

Annex A

DFO Responses to Environmental Petition No. 90 B
- The Effects of Trawling and Dredging on the Sea Floor -

Q-1:  Is there a law in Canada that protects fish habitat from destructive fishing practices and gear? If yes, then what is that law?

The Fisheries Act, mainly through Section 7 and its regulations, has all the means necessary to address the conservation and protection of the fishery, including fish habitat with respect to fishing activities.

The Oceans Act provides the legal basis for the comprehensive planning and management of all activities in or affecting Canada's marine ecosystems, based on the principles of sustainable development, integrated management and the precautionary approach. It does not replace existing legislative powers related to the management of individual fishing activities or the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) process.

Q-2:  How is the Canadian Policy for the Management of Habitat Protection applied in the context of marine ecosystems?

In the context of the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat provides Canadians with a statement of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' (DFO) policy objectives, goals and strategies for the management of fish habitats supporting both freshwater and marine fisheries.

For marine ecosystems, the Policy states:

"In the offshore marine waters on Canada's continental shelves, the policy will also apply, the main areas of interest being: (1) the surveillance and control of chemical hazards introduced, or that may be introduced, by man's activities, and (2) managing the potential adverse effects of plastic debris, ocean dumping, shipping and oil and gas exploitation activities." (source: Page 8, Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat)

Q-3:  Why are Canadian fisheries not managed under the more comprehensive Oceans Act? When will integrated management plans under the Oceans Act be completed?

The Fisheries Act, mainly through Section 7 and its regulations, has all the means necessary to address the management of the fishery.

The Oceans Act provides the legislative basis to integrate the planning and management of all activities potentially affecting Canada's marine ecosystems. This management approach is based on protecting the health of marine ecosystems as a first priority to achieve sustainability of the resource base on which industries and coastal communities depend. It does not replace sectoral management or the existing legislative powers related to the management of individual fishing activities or the IFMP process but informs the latter by providing information on the condition of the ecosystem and the location of ecologically and biologically significant areas.

The IFMP process provides a planning framework for the conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources. It indicates how a given fishery will be managed for a period of time. The IFMP planning process was introduced in 1996 and allows a greater integration of functional and technical expertise within the Department. The IFMP allows for enhanced input by resource users and other stakeholders into the management and conservation measures affecting a fishery. It also ensures the expertise and activities of relevant DFO sectors (e.g. Science, Resource Management, Conservation and Protection, Aboriginal Affairs, International, Oceans, Policy, etc.) are accounted for in the management planning.

As recently announced in the Budget, the Ocean Action Plan (OAP) will receive $28 million over two years, which will enable government-wide action to develop Canada's oceans resources for the benefit of coastal communities while protecting fragile marine ecosystems. Five Large Oceans Management Areas (LOMAs) have been identified as priority areas for integrated management initiatives. These LOMAs are at different stages of development but ultimately will lead to the elaboration of Integrated Management Plans (IMPs) and the identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas within these LOMAs.

For example, the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) initiative distributed a draft plan in February, 2005 for consultation and a potential approval in 2006. This initiative will recognize and build on the needs and interests of the varied stakeholders who rely on the oceans for their income as well as for the social, environmental and cultural needs of their respective communities.

Q-4:  When DFO opens a new area to fishing or licences a new fishery, does it consider the impacts on habitat of that new fishery or encourage the use of the least destructive gear type in that new area? Does DFO consider gear type when allocating quotas?

The Emerging Fisheries Policy (EFP) was developed in 1996 to clearly lay out the requirements that must be met and the procedures to follow before a new fishery can be initiated. The definition of a new fishery is one that involves new species and/or stocks that are not utilized or not fully utilized, and not currently covered by a management plan.

One of the guiding principles of the EFP is that "the potential impact or interaction of any new fishery or gear on associated or dependent species, fishing or gear type and on habitat will be assessed".

Management of new fisheries requires an integrated approach that blends science and business principles and effective involvement of government, industry and other parties to ensure fisheries are ecologically and economically sustainable.

A copy* of the new EFP is attached for your information.

Q-5:  When exploratory licences for developing fisheries are issued, is there a process to determine whether or not these fisheries are occurring in areas that have not yet been fished with bottom trawling gear?

The Emerging Fisheries Policy outlines a process by which requirements must be met and procedures followed before a new fishery can be initiated.

As a general rule new fisheries involve three stages:

1. the preliminary feasibility stage;
2. the commercial and stock assessment stage; and
3. the commercial fishing stage.

Part of the objective of the preliminary feasibility stage (1) is to determine if the species/stock can be captured by a specific gear type and to identify multi-species impacts and habitat impacts.

To address these latter points a proponent of a developing/emerging fishery could research available data to determine whether an area has been previously fished with a certain gear type.

Data of this nature are collected for all fisheries to some degree. Observer reports, fishery monitoring documents (logbooks) and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) all provide information concerning where a gear type has been fished. VMS is being expanded within Atlantic fisheries and will allow for better monitoring of fisheries activities and definition of fishing areas.

Q-6:  When fishing effort is reduced why is priority not given to less destructive gear types in the allocation of the remainder of the quota?

The allocation of quotas is based on a broad range of principles that have been developed in consultation with all fishing industry sectors. There are cases where quotas have been greatly reduced and one gear sector has been or will be returned to fishing in advance of another gear sector (eg: fixed gear before mobile gear in the 4RS3Pn and 2J3KL cod fishery).

DFO has made investments in gear research and conversion for the purpose of improving selective harvesting that sustains the reproductive capacity of targeted and non-targeted species. These efforts have led to better designs in all gear types, including trawling, longlining, gillnetting, and seining.

Q-7:  Does DFO rank or otherwise evaluate gear types in terms of their effects on marine ecosystem in Canadian waters?

DFO does not explicitly rank gear types. From experience, we know that all gear types can have negative impacts, depending on how they are used and in what circumstances. DFO recognizes there are impacts from fishing gear on marine ecosystems and has used various closures where sensitive areas have been scientifically identified.

The results of DFO and international research indicate that the effects of mobile fishing gear on seabed habitat and organisms are quite variable. They depend on several factors such as: (1) previous fishing history, (2) the kind of fishing gear, (3) the effort at which it is used, (4) the kind of seabed habitat impacted, and (5) the kind of organisms present on and in the seabed.

Further research will ensure proper decision-making in support of oceans, habitat and fisheries management. This includes (1) additional field experiments of fishing gear impacts, (2) understanding the role that different seabed habitats play in marine ecosystems and commercial fisheries, (3) mapping the fine-scale distribution of seabed habitat, and (4) mapping the fine-scale spatial distribution of fishing effort.

Management actions by DFO will be based on the state of scientific knowledge for a given area. The scientific results of research are being incorporated into fisheries and habitat management processes as they become available.

Q-8:  We are told that when management decisions are made, fish habitat is not considered, how is this consistent with your constitutional responsibility to protect fish habitat and the marine environment?

It is inaccurate to say that "fish habitat is not considered" when (fishery) management decisions are made. For example, as previously discussed, the EFP outlines specific operational guidelines, the objectives, among others, of which are to identify habitat impacts.

Fisheries management decisions are made in accordance with the ecosystem conservation objectives of respective IFMPs and can include habitat considerations. The IFMP process, described in the response to Question 3, ensures that the expertise and activities of all relevant DFO sectors are accounted for in management planning.

Additionally, "A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada's Atlantic Coast" further reaffirms the importance of fish habitat considerations with the following principle:

"Conservation of fisheries resources and habitat - defined as sustainable use that safeguards ecological processes and genetic diversity for present and future generations - is the first priority of fisheries management decision making."

The Department's responsibility to protect fish habitat and the marine environment is evidenced by action taken to date. For example, steps have been taken in Canada to protect known areas of significance from fishing practices that can have an effect on benthic marine ecosystems. A recent example is the Lophelia Conservation Area (LCA), located off Canada's east coast. The LCA is 15-square kilometres in size and protects the only known occurrence of the reef building coral Lophelia pertusa in Canadian waters. In 2002, DFO established a 424-square kilometre Coral Conservation Area in the Northeast Channel to protect the highest known density of octocoral colonies in Atlantic Canada.

The conservation of vulnerable seafloor habitats has also been addressed through the designation of two Marine Protected Areas established under the Oceans Act - the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents (2002) and The Gully (2004). To maintain and improve our commitment to the protection of vulnerable marine areas, DFO Maritimes Region released the draft Deep-sea Coral Conservation Plan in February 2005.

Q-9:  What is the process by which fisheries managers are informed about the importance and values of fish habitat?

As outlined in the response to question #8, fisheries management decisions are made in accordance with the ecosystem conservation objectives of respective IFMP, and can include habitat considerations. Additionally, other sources of information for fisheries managers concerning habitat importance could include seminars, workshops, newsletters, scientific journals, etc.

Q-10:  What is your estimate of the area of Canadian waters that is subject to bottom fishing gear including bottom trawls, shrimp beam trawls, scallop dredges and hydraulic clam dredges? On what basis do you make this estimate?

There is no comprehensive estimate of the area of Canadian waters that is subject to bottom fishing gear. Nor is there a standardized approach for quantifying the area of Canadian waters that is subject to bottom fishing gear. Research conducted in this area has not included fishing activities in all Canadian waters (e.g. northern shrimp, sub-area 0 turbot). The spatial extent of fishing these bottom gear varies significantly over time.

This subject may be referenced in Kulka, D.W., and Pitcher, D.A. 2001. Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Trawling Activity in the Canadian Atlantic and Pacific. ICES CM 2001/R:02 57 p.

Q-11:  How much money is allocated to marine habitat protection under DFO's budget? What percentage of that budget does this figure represent?

There is no specific budget allocation for `marine habitat protection'. In general, activities/responsibilities associated with this, be it directly or indirectly, are intrinsic to DFOs budget of $1.471B (source: 2004-05 Main Estimates).

Q-12:  What is trawl survey protocol for quantifying and mapping non-commercial structure habitat forming species?

Over the past five years, considerable effort has been spent on capturing information on invertebrate by catch in DFO trawl surveys. This includes non-commercial habitat structure forming species such as corals and sponges. Occurrence in the trawl is recorded in log sheets and, in the case of corals, samples are collected and returned ashore for further study by government and university scientists. These data can be used for mapping distributions. They have provided considerable insight into the distribution, morphology and associated species of corals off Atlantic Canada. The same kind of information is also collected by the offshore observer program. DFO has led the development of a revised deep-water coral identification sheet which has been widely distributed to groundfish survey technicians and fishery observers in Atlantic Canada.

Q-13:  Has there been a final report and audit of the 1991 gear substitution program? If so, how many boats actually were converted from trawl to longlining? What is the current status of this initiative?

There is no final report and/or audit of the 1991 gear substitution program of which we are aware.

The 1991 gear substitution program was a component of the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program (AFAP). Under AFAP, DFO made investments in gear research and conversion for the purpose of improving selective harvesting that sustains the reproductive capacity of targeted and non-targeted species. These efforts have led to better designs in all gear types, including trawling, longlining, gillnetting, and seining (among others). The AFAP, under which the gear conversion funding was made, was a 5-year program designed to address a complex problem through a comprehensive and dynamic program to support Canada's Atlantic fishing industry on a number of fronts. The AFAP was concluded in FY 1994-95.

Q-14:  Given that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans maintains that "conservation comes first" and that "without habitat there are no fish" is there a long-term strategy as to how to operationalize these claims with respect to Canada's marine fisheries?

Our Waters, Our Future, the 2005 Strategic Plan, will guide the work of DFO over the next five years. This Plan outlines DFO's vision, objectives, priorities and activities. Key priorities with respect to conservation, habitat and Canada's marine fisheries include an Oceans Action Plan and Fisheries Renewal.

It should be noted that the Oceans Act provisions related to Marine Protected Areas provide for the conservation and protection of living marine resources and their supporting habitat in recognition of the direct dependency of one on the other.

Q-15:  How does DFO define sensitive fish habitat? What activities does DFO consider to "effect" marine fish habitat?

The term `sensitive fish habitat' is not defined within current DFO policy or guidelines.

Any activities that occur in the marine environment may cause an `effect' on fish habitat.

Q-16:  Why has DFO never conducted an environmental assessment of bottom tending gear either regionally or for specific fisheries?

There is no legislated requirement to conduct an environmental assessment on fishing activities.

*[attachment not posted]

Glossary

• Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program (AFAP)
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
• Emerging Fisheries Policy (EFP)
• Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM)
• Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP)
• Integrated Management Plans (IMPs)
• Lophelia Conservation Area (LCA)
• Large Oceans Management Areas (LOMAs)
• Ocean Action Plan (OAP)
• Total Allowable Catches (TACs)
• Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS)