Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 3 - Evidence, February 5, 2003
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 5, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:18 p.m. to examine matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Tonight we are fortunate to have Mr. Bevan, who is no stranger to this committee. He has appeared before us in the past. He happens to be the chair of the Standing Committee on International Control, STACTIC, with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO. Please proceed, and we will then have questions from the committee members.
[Translation]
Mr. David Bevan, Chair of the Standing Committee, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization: I will be making my presentation in English. However, all of the background material is available in French.
[English]
I will begin with a description of NAFO. NAFO currently comprises 17 contracting parties — Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark on behalf of the Faroes and Greenland, Estonia, the European Union with 15 countries, France on behalf of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine and the U.S.A. There are 31 countries that are members of NAFO.
For the most part, they are involved in fishing outside the Canadian 200-mile limit in the NAFO regulatory area. That is the area managed by NAFO outside of our exclusive economic zone.
Some of those countries have recently joined, specifically Korea in 1993, Ukraine, U.S.A. and France on behalf of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. Bulgaria is a member of NAFO, but is not active. Romania formally withdrew.
In NAFO, there are two types of states. First, the coastal states, which have waters that are within the NAFO convention area. There is a map included in the presentation where honourable senators will see where that goes. Canada, U.S., France, and Denmark on behalf of Greenland, are all coastal states. However, only Canada is a coastal state where all the straddling stocks are managed by NAFO. NAFO manages stocks of great importance to Canada — cod and other groundfish stocks, for example, are managed by NAFO and are of great importance to Canada. The only other contracting party is France with an interest in squid, but that has not been of economic importance for the last 25 years.
NAFO is made up of four bodies. The general council looks after the administration of NAFO. It sets the budgets and salaries, oversees the performance of the executive secretary, and conducts staff performance appraisals, et cetera. The scientific council is the technical group that assesses all of the NAFO stock. That body provides scientific advice and risk assessments relevant to the biological condition of NAFO-managed stocks. The Fisheries Commission is the fish management body in NAFO. It looks at sharing the total allowable catches, TACS, that are recommended by science. It looks after the fishery in terms of control measures, inspection presence and what those parties with inspection presence can do, et cetera. I will elaborate on that shortly. There is a secretariat located in Dartmouth who is responsible to the general council for the day-to-day operation of NAFO. They receive hails and information from vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area and they provide that information to the contracting parties.
In respect of the Fisheries Commission's role in management, it receives and reviews the scientific data received from the scientific council. The commission will receive the stock status reports, which indicate how healthy the stocks are. Based on this information, they determine what the total allowable catch and quota allocations should be to each contracting party. Essentially, in NAFO, all fisheries are managed on a total allowable catch basis with the exception of the fishery for shrimp on the Flemish Cap.
The Fisheries Commission also establishes conservation measures such as minimum mesh size, fish sizes, bycatch rules, marking of boats and gear and reporting requirements — every conceivable eventuality seems to be covered. They also set rules relating to how vessels can be boarded from helicopters.
The Fisheries Commission is responsible for the Scheme of Joint International Inspection and Surveillance and for the conducting of surveillance, it coordinates the inspection presence in the area. It does that through the STACTIC committee, of which I am chair. It sets out the monitor and control measures including observers, satellite tracking devices and dockside inspections. Currently, in NAFO, all vessels must carry an observer, must have satellite-tracking devices, and they have to be subject to dockside inspections.
The Fisheries Commission enforces the Compliance Scheme against Non-Contracting Party Vessels. That used to be a significant problem for the commission within the NAFO regulatory area but has not been as serious in recent years. There are current events that are causing more worry on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks but we have not seen as much activity in recent years compared with the late 1980s and the early 1990s.
The NAFO regulatory area is huge. It covers approximately 30,000 square miles. The zones are the Nose of the Grand Banks — division 3L, the Tail of the Grand Banks — division 3NO and again, there is a map. Outside the Canadian zone, there are: division 1F, to the north; and divisions 2G, 2H, 2J, and 3K. Those are all the areas that are outside the Canadian-managed zone. Also, the Flemish Cap is division 3M, which is, again, a distinct area outside the Canadian zone. That is the NAFO regulatory area where NAFO has the responsibility of managing a number of stocks.
The map on the following page shows you the numbers for the areas and there is a dotted line depicting the 200-mile limit. Honourable senators will see that the Nose, the Tail and the Flemish Cap are outside of that area, plus certain portions of the northern zones.
NAFO-regulated stocks are listed on the table along with the current TAC in metric tonnes for 2003. Unfortunately, you can see that a number of the straddling stocks have no TAC associated with them because they are under moratorium. We can see that five of the stocks are currently under moratorium and a number of them have been that way for almost 10 years.
Straddling stocks are those stocks that swim across the 200-nautical-mile limit. They can be found either inside the Canadian zone or outside the Canadian zone. The stocks are such that a certain number will be inside or outside. Therefore, they can be fished either by Canada, inside, or by other vessels, outside the Canadian zone.
Discrete stocks are those that are found outside the Canadian zone such as the stocks on the Flemish Cap. They do not swim into the Canadian waters and, therefore, can be managed separately without large concern for the Canadian industry. All of the above stocks are managed by TACs, as I mentioned, except for the 3M shrimp fishery.
In addition to these regulated stocks, there are a large numbers of other species that are not regulated. NAFO does not set TAC or compliance rules for fish such as skates, hake, grenadiers and other fish of that nature. About one-half of the catch is from regulated species and the rest are unregulated species. These unregulated species make a large contribution to the earnings of vessels outside 200 miles in the NAFO regulatory area, NRA.
With respect to catches in NAFO, in 1992 total groundfish catches were 153,000 tonnes. In 1993 the shrimp was about 30,000 tonnes. We have seen the groundfish catch drop now to approximately 91,000 tonnes in 2000. Some continued downward trend for groundfish is expected outside the 200-mile limit.
STACTIC is responsible for administering the Scheme for Joint International Inspection and Surveillance on behalf of the Fisheries Commission. STACTIC reports to the Fisheries Commission — it is not a decision-making body but must take recommendations to the commission to have the recommendations brought into force. The scheme is a key component of compliance in NAFO because it forms the basis for third-party inspections at sea. Generally, many nations do not like this because they do not like to have their flagged vessels boarded by inspectors from another state and they do not like to be subject to the rules and findings of compliance or non-compliance by inspectors of other states. It has been a long-standing practice, as per the scheme, to authorize inspectors — currently Canada and the EU have an inspection presence in the NAFO regulatory area, NFA — under NAFO authority, to board any of the contracting party vessels in the area for the purpose of inspecting the gear; to inspect and record estimates of catch — the fishing log versus what they see in the hold, for example; to access production logs so they can verify the fish factory on the vessel is consistent with what is in the log and what is in the hold. They can inspect fish holds and storage areas and remove, tag, seal and photograph illegal gear. If they find small mesh gear on a vessel from Europe, for example, they can actually seal that gear on board the vessel and call for corroboration of their findings by an inspector from the European Union, who is then obliged to board the vessel to verify the findings. Then, a decision is taken on the consequences of the non-compliance in the event that the findings are corroborated.
The scheme lays out procedures for these inspections. It outlines duties of fishing vessel masters and explains their obligations are in providing information to inspectors for facilitating the inspection. The scheme outlines their specifications right down to the type of ladder that has to be lowered over the side to facilitate the boarding. It establishes reporting procedures and obligations of the contracting party for follow-up on reports. In the event of a problem, there is an obligation of the flag state to tell STACTIC what they did about the problem.
STACTIC is the body that oversees that work for the Fisheries Commission. The majority of the 17 contracting parties participate at meetings, which are held annually in September, and intersessionally — usually in June — to deal with specific issues assigned to us by the Fisheries Commission.
STACTIC has a number of working groups. We have a working group on pilot projects on observers, satellite tracking and electronic reporting. We have a technical working group on implementation of facilities for the pilot project. Specifically, they are looking at how to receive and transmit data coming in via satellite transponders on the vessels in the NAFO regulatory area. We have a working group on the overhaul of the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures. The measures had been put together over years and they need to be streamlined to make them more user-friendly.
In 2002, as a result of a presentation by Canada on compliance, the terms of reference for STACTIC were strengthened. STACTIC was to review the enforcement measures established by the Fisheries Commission. We are now looking at reviewing and evaluating reports of inspection and surveillance activities carried out by contracting parties, and reviewing and evaluating reports of infringements, including serious infringements and the follow-up thereto.
The Fisheries Commission asked us to provide them with a report on compliance in the NAFO regulatory area at the September meeting. We will be meeting in June to undertake a comprehensive review of compliance by each contracting party's vessels in the NRA with a view to making that level of compliance transparent and allowing the commission in September to take corrective action in the event that there is widespread non-compliance or that a particular contracting party has non-compliance.
The executive secretary has also been given new tasks to facilitate this work. We will be working to better coordinate our inspections. Canada and the European Union are sharing data on air surveillance. As I mentioned earlier, all the parties with a presence in the area receive, on a six-hour basis, data on the whereabouts of every vessel and hail, and reports on the fishing activity so that they can direct their inspection presence in the area more effectively.
In a typical annual meeting, therefore, we usually have a review of the annual infringements — what kind of problems were seen as a result of the inspection presence by the European Union, Faroe Islands, Canada, or whomever else might have a vessel in the area doing inspections. There is a review of surveillance and inspection reports — how many hours were spent on air surveillance, ship surveillance; how many inspections; the results of those inspections. There is a review of the operation of the automated hail and vessel monitoring system. Were we receiving the required vessel location once every six hours? Were we getting the reports from the captain on the hails, et cetera? There is the observer program and scientific requirements. We continuously review the work of observers in the NRA — the gathering of information and how that information is used.
There is discussion of possible amendments to the conservation and enforcement measures. Recently, for example, we introduced a definition of what directed fishing is so that we could deal with bycatch more effectively. We continuously look at that at the request of the Fisheries Commission, and make recommendations to the commission.
There are a number of current issues that STACTIC that will address at the June meeting. These include an effective compliance framework and a joint assessment by all parties of compliance in the regulatory area, as I mentioned earlier. That work will be done with a view to bringing it forward to the Fisheries Commission for their consideration in September. There is evaluation of the NAFO observer program, which was put in place in 1995. We will look at the effectiveness of that program and to determine if there are ways to improve it. Linked to that is the development of a possible pilot project observer program for implementation in 2004. That would be a involve using observers in conjunction with satellite transponders and having reports transmitted in near real-time to the countries with an inspection presence in the zone, so that there could be ongoing monitoring of the activities on the vessels. We could compare the vessel hail by the skipper and the hail by the observer and look at potentially unobserved vessels to determine where to direct our dockside inspection efforts. We are drafting a consolidation of the conservation and enforcement measures to make them more user-friendly and clearer. Finally, we are looking at a means by which we can reduce catches or bycatches of stocks subject to NAFO moratoria. We are concerned there has been a trend in the last three or four years where vessels claim to be directing for one species but are actually catching species under moratoria. We are looking at means by which we can control that.
Those are current issues underway at STACTIC that will be subject to deliberations in the fall.
We have an international inspection presence. We have rules that allow, for example, Canadian inspectors who find a problem to remain on the vessel until the inspector from the flag state arrives. They can actually stay on the vessel with the permission of the flag state until it arrives at dockside for inspection. Canadian inspectors have stayed on vessels as they have made their way back across the sea to Europe for inspection. We have all of these measures for increased transparency but, in the final say, it is the responsibility of the flag state and the courts in the flag state country to take action on vessels that do not comply. It is their responsibility to have in place the regulatory frameworks needed to make the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures real.
That is something that has not happened. Obviously, we have not had states agree to have their sovereignty eroded to the point where, for example, a Canadian could be boarded by a Russian and tried in a Russian court or vice versa. That will not happen, unless the violator e is inside the 200-limit, and that is a different situation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for a most comprehensive synopsis. It will be very helpful to senators.
Senator Cook: I am from Newfoundland. There is a feeling afoot at home that if we could only get outside that 200- mile limit, all our problems would be solved. We would like to get at those straddling stocks because there are no fish anywhere else and they are out there in great numbers. What would happen if Canada assumed control of those stocks? Would we get any support from other nations for it?
Mr. Bevan: More than 40,000 tonnes of fish caught out there are straddling stocks. There is certainly a valuable resource out there. However, that will not necessarily be available to us. Obviously, to do that there would have to be a long-term negotiation with other countries to determine if we could push the envelope on international law and have a different interpretation. At this point under international law, there is a 200-mile limit. There is clearly no current support for changing that limit to something larger. In a Canadian context, we would have to have something like 360 or 400 nautical miles to encompass the entire Flemish Cap.
There will be a forum in Newfoundland in February. We are bringing together experts from Canada and around the world to look at ways to better manage these stocks. Are there alternatives to what is currently underway? That is something that Canada is looking at. In terms of NAFO and the international commissions, there is no support for that. Any discussion of those subjects cannot take place at the NAFO table; they must take place at some other forum. There would have to be some international legal support for that shift and that will not be quickly available.
This will not be a quick fix in terms of the desires of Newfoundland fishermen to have access to the resource or to better control the vessels outside the 200-mile limit.
Senator Cook: What we are seeing is wishful thinking; is that right?
Mr. Bevan: The forum will help us to explore all possible areas and means to better manage these issues. At this time I am unable to say that there is any support within the NAFO arena for change.
Senator Cook: My understanding of NAFO is quite rudimentary. However, when I look at your presentation I am encouraged by this new subsidiary, STACTC. The authority that STACTIC has is to review, evaluate and recommend to NAFO. Is that basically what your role is? Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Bevan: We are a standing committee of the Fisheries Commission. We report to the commission at the annual meeting. They provide us with specific tasks. We also have standing tasks.
At this point, because of the meeting in 2002, we have been given the additional task of measuring compliance in the NAFO regulatory area. That will be done for each contracting party. For example, we say the Russian vessels are doing this, the Canadian vessels are doing that and the European vessels will be doing the following. We will provide this information, along with any evident recommendations that will change or enhance performance, to the commission. Even if these measures were adopted, the Fisheries Commission and STACTIC can only change the conservation and enforcement measures of NAFO or the procedures for inspection. The actual dealing with non- compliance still rests with the contracting party.
Senator Cook: Your outcomes are really reference points for NAFO and one would hope that you would come to a consensus when presenting the outcomes of identified problems; is that correct?
Mr. Bevan: That is correct.
Senator Hubley: Sometimes I believe I have a grasp of what straddling stocks are and at other times, I am not sure if I do. Would you tell me how the Fisheries Commission interacts? Does the scientific information that would be presented by the council directly affect decisions made by the commission?
Mr. Bevan: Yes, it influences the decisions made by the commission. Since 1995, the commission has generally followed the scientific advice. The scientific advice will be derived from Canadian, Spanish, Russian and other research. They all do surveys. They meet extensively during the year. There is a scientific council meeting in June, followed by two weeks around the annual meeting. They get together, review the data and arrive at a consensus on the advice to give to the Fisheries Commission relevant to the stock status, and the kind of TACs and catches that the stocks can withstand. Since about 1995, the commission has generally followed that advice.
In the early 1990s, there was a tendency for contracting parties to object to quotas set by the commission, to set unilateral TACs that were considerably higher, not control their vessels so the actual catch was even higher than that and the overfishing problem was considerable. Subsequent to 1995, things did change and improve considerably relevant to that relationship between the scientific council and the Fisheries Commission.
Senator Hubley: Would the scientific council have any indication from, for example, the fisheries organization that would be governing the stocks in Newfoundland as to where the stocks have collapsed? Would they have had any indication of such a collapse and would any of the decisions they would have made been reflective of the fact that there was a decline or a collapse in the cod fishery in Newfoundland?
Mr. Bevan: The NAFO decision to put a moratorium on a number of stocks was based on Canadian and other science. They did do that. The difficulty with NAFO is that there is a time lag — when we meet in September in 2003, we will be doing the rules for 2004. That can mean that fishing might continue even though there were decisions in Canada to stop fishing. If you look at the regulated stocks on slide seven, you will see that there are a number of zeros there. Those zeros reflect the Canadian decision to put those stocks under moratorium. There has been consistency with respect to NAFO and the Canadian management of the stocks in recent years.
Senator Hubley: Can you give me some idea of what kind of a time lag we are looking at? Would there be some indication that there would be a decline in the straddling stocks to the point where we do not have any stock?
Mr. Bevan: In the past, we had some poor practices in NAFO where contracting parties would not follow the scientific advice. If the Fisheries Commission set a TAC they did not like, because their share was too low, they would set a unilateral TAC. You will appreciate that that kind of behaviour in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to overfishing and a breakdown in correlation between what we were doing and what the NAFO was actually doing in terms of the fishing effort. That does not exist now. All stocks under a moratorium inside are under a moratorium outside.
Senator Hubley: Do you feel that overfishing damaged the fishery?
Mr. Bevan: Overfishing was certainly a contributing factor. There were a number of factors that contributed. Stocks can take fishing pressure when they are in good condition and there is high productivity in the water, and so forth. Stocks can survive poor conditions and productivity if there is low fishing. They cannot do both. That is what we seem to have had in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We had a combination of both high fishing pressure, high natural mortality, poor recruitment and the results were inevitable.
Senator Hubley: Do you see a change or an improvement to date?
Mr. Bevan: It is sort of relative. The behaviour now is better than it was before 1995. However, the behaviour between 1995 and, say, 1998 and 1999, was better than it is now. We had very high compliance in those years right after the new measures were put in place — new procedures where inspectors could stay on the vessels, inspectors could follow vessels back to home ports, et cetera. There was good deterrence from observers.
Since 1999, the deterrence from putting observers on the vessels has deteriorated and now we are much more reliant on flag states taking appropriate action to deal with non-compliance and not necessarily taking the action that should be taken if we are to provide that deterrence. In recent years, we have seen — and it is documented at STACTIC and at the Fisheries Commission — an increase in non-compliance with respect to vessels pretending or saying they are directing for one species and actually catching another, or putting the fish in the hold and saying they have less of one and more of another.
There has been a problem there. That is why the measures were put in place, in 2002, to define ``directed fishing'' and to continue measuring compliance to seeing if we can improve the situation. It slipped compared to the latter half of the 1990s, but it is better still than it was before 1995.
Senator Watt: I question whether proper scientific information is being collected. When someone says that they do not cross the border of any stock, I have a difficulty with that statement. I look at what is happening to our stock in the Arctic and I would imagine that the same thing is happening elsewhere.
The fact is that there is a lot of noise — noise that never used to exist before — increasing along the coast. There are more activities than there were before along the coast — not only in terms of mobile boats and things of that nature but also various other types of industries taking place offshore. These definitely have an effect on the stock, especially the stock that is not considered to cross the border, one of them being cod.
Do you have scientific information to support the statement that those stocks remain outside of the 200-mile limit and that they have not necessarily originated from inside of the 200-mile limit?
Mr. Bevan: That is correct. The stocks that are deemed to be discrete stocks — that is, stocks that do not come from the Flemish Cap, back across the Flemish pass on to the Grand Banks — have, though a variety of techniques, been assessed as distinct from the straddling stocks that do cross the border. Most of the population is inside the Canadian zone but enough is outside that if it is overfished outside, it could be a problem. Those are the straddling stocks. There are then the others that are based on the best scientific information and studies. I cannot recall if they have done genetic tests there.
Senator Watt: That would be my next point.
Mr. Bevan: The scientific council has done a lot of work to determine which stocks are straddling stocks, what are the stock components, and which ones are discrete. For example, genetic studies have been done on northern cod to determine whether the inshore and offshore components are one and the same. I believe that has been done on 3M, but I would have to verify with the science that they had actually used the genetic testing to verify the distinctness of the 3M or Flemish Cap cod stock.
Senator Watt: Do you think in the near future we will be able to have a better handle on that?
Mr. Bevan: The scientific council seems to be confident that they are discrete. That is the best information they have right now. Lately, the Fisheries Commission has been asking more about risk. Science advice always comes with some degree of uncertainty. It is necessary to understand what that degree of uncertainty is in order to ascertain what the risk is of any decision you may make on fishing. If we are to treat the Flemish Cap population as discrete and distinct, we need to know, ``Are you sure about that? Is it 80 per cent or whatever?'' They have been fairly definitive that that is not an issue. They think it is distinct.
Senator Watt: The scientific council very much influence, I would imagine, not only the Canadians but also the international community. Therefore there is an international influence that takes place within the decision-making.
Mr. Bevan: It is done generally by consensus to come forward with consensus advice to the Fisheries Commission. Definitely, there is an influence because the research vessel surveys that we do are inside the 200-mile limit and, perhaps, go outside. We do research vessel surveys, the Spanish may do research vessel surveys, the Portuguese may have data, the Russians may have data, and so on. They get together and share and analyze that data. Definitely, the views and data of other contracting parties influence the outcome. It is just better to have more information.
Senator Watt: I would imagine that the economics and the political aspects of it are taken into account before the decision is actually made. It is not just a scientific decision, then.
Mr. Bevan: The scientific council is supposed to provide us with scientific advice. That is, us, through the Fisheries Commission and, through them, all the contracting parties. It is the job of the Fisheries Commission to consider the socio-economic as well as the biological. Unfortunately, back in the 1980s and the early 1990s, there was a tendency to look at the socio-economic short-term and not the long term. The result is, unfortunately, that there are many stocks under moratorium.
There is now a tendency to follow the advice.
Senator Mahovlich: I am not sure if I misunderstood you or not. You mentioned ships that are found within the 200- mile limit. Can they be prosecuted by Canada? How many ships have been prosecuted?
Mr. Bevan: Not that many. Actually, this week, a vessel that was fishing crab outside the 200-mile limit was sentenced. Crab and sedentary species are still ours on our continental shelf, and that includes outside the 200-mile limit. That vessel was found guilty and was given a substantial fine and forfeit of its catch.
That was one incident. I am not sure how, or if the individual thought he could get away with it or not, but we have not had any vessels venture into our 200-mile limit.
Senator Mahovlich: From what country was that vessel?
Mr. Bevan: The United States. In recent years, we have not had much incursion into our zone. We run air surveillance. There are transponders on the vessels and the consequences of coming into our zone and getting caught are quite significant. They are still talking about the incidents in 1987 when the Spanish vessel took off across the ocean with two fisheries officers on board. That vessel was given such a heavy fine that the company went bankrupt. That is still talked about in fishing circles in Spain today.
There have been another couple of similar incidents, but few have taken on the risk, because of the consequences of good deterrence and good surveillance.
Senator Phalen: In your opinion, how big a problem is non-compliance?
Mr. Bevan: Non-compliance is a problem because, according to the scientific council, it is impeding the recovery of some stocks that are of great importance to a number of contracting parties and, in particular, Canada. For example, people are saying that they are directing towards skate and then coming up on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and directing towards American plaice. This activity has had an impact on the speed of recovery of American plaice. That is a significant problem.
Changes were made in the enforcement measure to try to deal with that. That trend has reversed to some degree; it has gone down in one year. However, we must see that reversal continue and get it under control. Until then, it remains a concern.
Senator Phalen: What measures have you taken to deal with the problem?
Mr. Bevan: There was a loophole that existed. They would come up on the Grand Bank using 130-millimetre mesh gear that is suitable for fishing American plaice. They would claim that they were fishing for skate when they should have been using much larger mesh size — 280 millimetres. At the time, there was no rule that defined what directed fishing was. When boarding these people we would find that most of their catch was American plaice. However, we had no rule we could use to prevent them from doing so.
Now, they are obliged to meet the rule that defines what directed fishing is — if they have more American plaice than skate, they are subject to penalty for a major infringement. Additionally, if they are fishing for skate, the are required to use 280-millimetre mesh. That should make it a cleaner fishery. In time, we will see if that will help us reverse the trend.
Senator Phalen: If an observer sees that someone is not complying with the rule, what are the legal consequences?
Mr. Bevan: That is, again, a problem with the flag state interpretation. In Canada, we use observer information to take enforcement action. In the European Union, they do not. They use it to direct enforcement presence.
The observer reports come in well after the vessel has landed. Therefore, there is a problem in meeting the court's interpretation of the evidence suitable for proving beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some limitations on the use of that. That is another reason we are looking at changing the observer scheme. We would do a pilot project to get real- time data and direct our inspection effort toward those vessels. We would direct them to go to port to be inspected.
It is the responsibility of the flag state to deal with the information that they get in terms of whether the vessel is in compliance and determine what they will do about it. The European Union does not use observer data to follow up with legal charges.
Senator Phalen: Is there any follow-up if someone does not comply with the rule?
Mr. Bevan: That has been one of our concerns at STACTIC. In 2002, Canada made a presentation to the Fisheries Commission on concerns related to non-compliance found and reported by observers, with no apparent follow-up. In September 2002, additional data was provided. The Fisheries Commission then charged STACTIC with measuring compliance.
Compliance is composed of two things, detection, which is through observers, and compliance, which is a consequence of being found to be breaking the rules. Unfortunately, we are still somewhat weak on the latter. That is a challenge for NAFO and the contracting parties.
Senator Adams: One of our previous witnesses said that Canada has majority quotas for outside the 200-mile limit. I believe the figure was approximately 95 per cent. Is that true?
Mr. Bevan: In Canada, in both the NAFO area and within our 200-mile limit, the quota keys for a number of stocks including northern cod, yellowtail and American plaice give us a vast majority of the fish. That is why it is in Canadian interest to rebuild those stocks.
The difficulty is that those people who are currently catching those fish as a bycatch — or purported to be a bycatch — will not get much of the payoff if the stocks are rebuilt. They would need to change their practices, forgo fishing opportunities to rebuild the stocks and not get much in the future. That is making some of the compliance challenges so significant.
There will be a more transparent process. We will be able to bring to the public and to the Fisheries Commission, through the NAFO reports, the compliance performance of the various contracting parties regarding the conservation enforcement measures aimed at rebuilding those stocks to benefit Canadian fishermen.
Senator Adams: How much does Canada benefit from these quotas? Most of the stocks are caught by others, are they not?
Mr. Bevan: Not quite, there are Canadian bycatches as well. Canada has a hard time fishing for yellowtail flounder, which is abundant and has a large quota, while still avoiding the bycatch of American plaice. We are also involved in an unavoidable bycatch of American plaice.
There are unavoidable bycatches of American plaice in the Greenland halibut fishery. The contracting parties could live with that. The difficulty is if people are purporting to fish for one species, but actually directing towards species that, if they did rebuild, would be 95 per cent or 97 per cent Canadian.
Senator Adams: That is administered by DFO, is that correct?
Mr. Bevan: We administer the harvesting of the fisheries for which we are responsible. For example, we get the vast majority of yellowtail and do direct the fishing of our vessels. That is the same responsibility that anyone else has. The European Union has a significant share of Greenland halibut. They are responsible for directing and controlling their vessels on that fishery and ensuring that those vessels are living within the conservation enforcement measures.
As part of transparency, we can board their vessels and they can board ours. That is the way it works. We do not tell another country how to share the quota they have. That is up to the contracting party.
The Fisheries Commission will break the quota down between the contracting parties. In yellowtail, we get 97.5 per cent and others get 2.5 per cent. Within that, DFO directs the fishing efforts of Canadian vessels.
For Greenland halibut, where the European Union has a significant quota, it is their decision as to how the quota is shared and how to control the fleet.
Senator Adams: We do not benefit from quotas to foreigners, do we? We may give the Europeans a share of a quota, but we do not get anything for the shares of the cod.
Mr. Bevan: I think that the head of the Canadian delegation would be have a difficult time convincing his delegation that we should not give away Canadian quota to others in exchange for something. That has not been a readily accepted strategy in the past.
Senator Adams: You say that in 1993, total 3M and 3L shrimp catches were 30,000 tonnes. In the year 2000, total groundfish catches were about 91,000 tonnes and in the same area, total 3M and 3L shrimp catches were about 54,000 tonnes. Is that correct?
Mr. Bevan: Yes. In the past, this has shown that groundfish has gone down significantly from 1993 to 2000. Shrimp has gone up. There is growth in the shrimp population, as determined by the scientific council in area 3L inside the Canadian zone and outside the Canadian zone. While there had been concerns about the health of the shrimp population on the Flemish Cap — that is 3M — it has sustained a significant fishery and there have been substantial catches that have grown over the last number of years.
Senator Adams: Will that be the same thing this year as in 1993?
Mr. Bevan: Currently, the shrimp quota in 3L has gone from 6,000 to 13,000 tonnes, 6,000 in 2002 to 13,000 in 2003. The other is not managed on a quota; it is managed on an effort. If you have an increase in the catch per unit effort, the catch goes up.
The Chairman: I will go through a short preamble and then get to some questions you may be able to help me with.
I do not think there is any question that most Canadians are in agreement that our northern cod stocks, groundfish and some other stocks are in deep trouble. The moratorium drove that home over a decade ago. I think Canadians are now in complete agreement that we need to have some extremely harsh conservation measures.
There is enough blame to be placed all around. We can blame NAFO, overfishing, seals and water temperatures. We even had the minister some time ago blaming the former government. The blame has been passed all around and is bounced back and forth.
What we hear from most people in Atlantic Canada is that we must do something. A great number of knowledgeable people have told us that NAFO has weaknesses that cannot be fixed, even though it is well-meaning and has had a significant amount of hard work put into it. For example, there are different sovereignties trying to come up with a way of preserving the fish. You named that yourself: We cannot expect to board a foreign vessel, a foreign flagship, and bring them to our courts, just as we would not want them to bring our people to their court.
Other weak points include the objection procedure, whereby if a country objects to the quota set, it can just its own. That has created a situation where we arrive at quotas by consensus. Settings quotas by consensus is simply not a good conservation objective. Politically, you do it because you have to. As has been suggested, it is better than nothing at all. That is the message we have been getting.
Even some of the more drastic proposals that have been made, such as custodial management, cannot be contemplated because it will just not fly; it will just not happen. I believe I understand why.
In looking at other possibilities, I assume there are a couple of areas that we might consider. The United Nations Fish Agreement, UNFA, I understand, may be put into place over the next year. That is the agreement on straddling stocks. Apparently, it has huge promise. I would like you to comment on that.
I have one other request that I would like you to look at. In your opinion, would the concept of making the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks a completely fish-free zone — no fishing whatsoever. Would that help to conserve the stocks that we are trying to conserve and possibly start rebuilding the stocks that need to be rebuilt?
Mr. Bevan: With respect to what might be termed a ``protected area,'' NAFO was provided with a STACTIC recommendation to consider — namely, closures on the southeast shoal for the protection of fish. That would work and would help to conserve and rebuild stocks.
There was another proposal that would direct fishing for Greenland halibut above 700 metres. When the European member states and fishing interests started plotting these things out on the graphs, they found that the outline looked a lot like the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. They were fearful that we had come up with a scheme by which we could remove them from the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and it had no support for that reason. Drawing lines to keep fishermen out has had very limited support.
Unfortunately, that is the case in Canada as well. Even a 20-by-20 mile block off of Newfoundland, where we wanted to stop dragging in order to measure the impact on crab, was badly received by fishing interests. Marine protected areas have some promise if they are big enough, and they must be quite large in order to have some potential.
We have not been successful in a NAFO context in having those accepted by the Fisheries Commission. We have had some difficulty in looking at those in the Canadian context, even where we have had some significant reason to do so. We have put in, for example, no-drag zones to protect corals, for example. These are not without controversy, and we have had some push-back from NAFO for closures proposed in the NRA.
The Chairman: If I may propose a wild scheme: What about an artificial reef strategy? Let me explain what my artificial reef strategy would be. We would go to various junkyards, pick up car bodies, put a little cement in them and dump these car bodies at very strategic locations all along the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. If any of these dragger nets drag along the bottom of the nose and tail, it would destroy every net. You would strategically place them. Would that not stop both Canadian and foreign dragger nets? Artificial reefs have been shown worldwide to be absolutely great for fish habitat.
Finally, to make things somewhat easier and more palatable for our overfishing friends, we could say, ``Look, given that the reef is no longer fishable, we will allow you to come in and fish in Canadian waters, and these are the fish that you are allowed to take.'' It will be the same quota they had before, or somewhat less, depending on the science. At this point, if you are fishing Canadian waters, you must abide by Canadian scientific assessment and rules for fishing. Would that be helpful at all?
Mr. Bevan: I am not sure what the international law ramifications would be.
The Chairman: What can they do to stop us?
Mr. Bevan: That question has been raised in conversation when people are looking for solutions to these issues.
The Chairman: Let us do it.
Mr. Bevan: I cannot respond at this time because I have no analysis. Certainly, if people do fish inside the Canadian zone, they fish according to the Canadian conservation measures and under Canadian law. That is an issue there. I could not really give you an answer on the international aspects of it.
The Chairman: It is international waters. What can anyone do to stop us from going out and creating an artificial reef that is of benefit to all humankind? I cannot see anything wrong with that.
Mr. Bevan: I would have to take that matter to DFAIT and to the international justice folks.
The Chairman: Take this subject and bump it around in the think tanks.
Mr. Bevan: The forum that will be held in Newfoundland in a couple of weeks will look at many options that are consistent with international law for improving the management of these activities. Something may come out of that.
On the subject of the artificial reef, we would have to take that matter back and do an analysis.
In regard to the suggestion for UNFA, a number of contracting parties have ratified and are subject to the UNFA provisions. One party that has not ratified UNFA is the European Union. Unless they do so, they will not be subject to those provisions. That limits the usefulness of UNFA in that regard.
Again, all of these matters will be subject to discussion at the forum. That is probably where the most reasonable recommendations will come forward that would be accepted by international law, et cetera. Those discussions would be held outside of the STACTIC and the NAFO area.
I can assure honourable senators that NAFO has considered the marine protected area option and has rejected it. That was actually put to a vote in January 2002 and Canada voted for, but lost that vote.
The Chairman: Have you heard the rumour that the EU may vote on joining UNFA this coming summer?
Mr. Bevan: Yes, we have heard that they are ready to ratify. Again, that offers some opportunities, but not necessarily a panacea.
The Chairman: One final question: The stock collapse in the North Sea will place pressure on some EU countries to look elsewhere. Have you considered what kind of impact this might have on Canadian offshore resources?
Mr. Bevan: From the point of view of the Fisheries Commission, it is up to the European Union to decide how many vessels they wish to send here to fish their allocation. Clearly, if you send more vessels than the allocation can economically support, you are inviting trouble in any fishery. If the resource cannot generate enough cash flow to legally keep the fleet solvent, the fleet will try to find a way to increase that cash flow to the point where they can break even or make some money. That might require them to push the envelope. That happens with any fishery anywhere in the world it would seem. If too many vessels were sent here, then that would be a cause of concern relevant to the compliance and the kind of practices that might be employed by those companies.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bevan. We appreciate your taking time out of your very busy schedule.
The committee adjourned.