Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 2 - Evidence, November 26, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 26, 2002
The Standing Senatorial Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7 p.m. to examine and report from time to time unpon the matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We are here again tonight to examine and report from time to time upon the matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
[English]
Tonight, our witnesses are from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. Patrick Chamut, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Tonight we will discuss foreign overfishing. I will provide some background on the regulation of fisheries outside the 200-mile limit. I would like to put the problem of foreign overfishing in the current context. I will speak about some issues associated with the international legal framework and I will also talk about the recent report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the government response to that report. I will conclude with some comments about the recent meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization that occurred in Spain last September.
Canada has jurisdiction to manage, conserve and harvest fish stocks that are inside the 200-mile limit off both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
On our East Coast the problem is that the Grand Banks extends past the 200-mile limit and the fish stocks located there move outside the 220-mile limit as well. When the fish move outside the 200-mile limit they are subject to harvest by foreign vessels. Foreign vessels have freedom to fish on the high seas and are therefore operating within the UN law of the sea when they fish in these waters.
If we want to be successful in managing these stocks, we cannot do it alone. We need international cooperation if we are to manage and regulate these fish.
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, regulates the fisheries outside the 200-mile limit. This organization has members from 18 countries. Many of these countries cooperate with NAFO on the management and regulation of harvesting outside the 200-mile limit.
NAFO provides scientific advice to enable regulation and proper management of fisheries. Their scientific council makes recommendations on subjects such as the abundance of stocks and the sustainable levels of harvest.
NAFO also sets conservation measures. They have the authority to regulate the size of gear that can be used when fishing. They also set ``bycatch'' limits. NAFO is responsible for setting the conservation measures to be followed by those parties that fish on the high seas.
NAFO also has an important role in settling what we call TACs, which is the total allowable catch. Between the various countries that fish past the 200-mile limit, NAFO allocates the shares for each of the parties.
Finally, NAFO has a role in an international inspection regime. Inspectors who are operating under the NAFO flag can board any foreign vessel that is fishing outside the 200-mile limit. We also have, as part of the inspection regime, observers who are required to be on the boats, as well as satellite monitoring systems to track the location and performance of the various vessels.
NAFO has responsibility for managing, regulating and conserving fish stocks on the high seas. However, it is not always operated in a fully effective manner and significant overfishing occurred outside the 200-mile limit in the late 1980s and early 1990s, contributing to the collapse of groundfish stocks. Mr. Chairman, this was not overfishing on a minor scale; it was overfishing on a grand scale.
Some parties were not abiding by the requirement to cooperate on the management of stocks. They were setting unilateral quotas at much higher levels than was acceptable based on the scientific advice. They then chose to ignore even those unilateral quotas. There were also a number of other problems associated with non-adherence to the conservation measures. In the late 1980s and 1990s, we had a serious problem. It culminated in the dispute we had with Spain in 1995, and resulted in the adoption of new measures and improved compliance with foreign fleets.
Slide number three is a map showing the convention that is subject to NAFO. It is hard to see on this chart, but the heavy line that bounds the exterior of the box is essentially the area within which they are responsible.
Slide number four illustrates the stocks that are regulated by NAFO. They come in two flavours. First, there are the straddling stocks, which are fish live within the 200-mile limit as well as outside of it. Second, we also have what we call discrete stocks, which are stocks that are exclusively outside the 200-mile limit. They reside on what we call the Flemish Cap, which is an extension of the Grand Banks but well outside the 200-mile limit.
In addition to the discrete and straddling stocks, there are some species that are not regulated at all. These include fish such as skate, grenadier and certain types of redfish.
Page five deals with the problem itself. I have mentioned that overfishing was a serious problem in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
In the post-1995 arrangements with NAFO, we are seeing that overfishing is substantially less. The problem we are currently dealing with is not of the same magnitude as existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
We are concerned that there has been an increasing trend of non-compliance with NAFO measures since 1995. The infringements have been increasing since 1995. In 1996, for example, we had less than 10 foreign vessel infringements. In 2000 and 2001, the infringements were as high as 25. You see an increase that is not at level that existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, we are concerned that there is a trend toward increasing violations. What we want to do is stop and reverse the violations.
In January of 2002 we presented and analysis to NAFO. We reported that a number of parties were misreporting their catch; that they were, in some cases, overfishing their quotas; there was evidence of directed fishing of species under moratoria, which is contrary to the rules of NAFO; and there was also evidence of the use of small-mesh fishing gear, which is contrary to NAFO regulations.
We were concerned about the evidence that we identified, and we were concerned about backsliding from a reasonably good record to a record that was worsening.
Our analysis concluded that NAFO has the means to detect violations. However, there is poor deterrence. In the absence of poor deterrence, compliance is by no means assured. There are loopholes in some of the conservation and enforcement measures employed by NAFO. We found that in many instances, there was ineffective follow-up on the obligations that flag states have to ensure that their fleets are operating in compliance with the rules.
Public concern and a growing lack of public confidence in NAFO has been the result of our presentation. We wonder if NAFO can protect stocks and manage these stocks in a sustainable manner.
Slide six deals with the international legal context of the problem. I will not go into much detail here, because I know the experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs will inform you more fully on these matters.
Under the UN law of the sea the coastal states have the right to manage and exploit fisheries within 200 miles of their coast. These countries also have freedom to fish on the high seas. To balance the right to fish, there is a requirement that states cooperate if they are fishing on straddling stocks. They do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want. Flag states have a duty to cooperate, and a duty to control the activities of their fleets. They retain the authority to enforce against their own vessels. This is an important point to emphasize. When these vessels are fishing outside the 200-mile limit, it is the responsibility of the flag state to take any enforcement action if they are identified as being out of compliance with the rules set out by NAFO.
Canada is not a signatory to the law of the sea. However, the rights and the duties that are set under the law are currently well-accepted as part of international law. Therefore, while we have not ratified, Canada is subject to and bound by these rights and duties.
I turn now to the report that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans provided us on foreign overfishing. Given the concerns about the impacts of foreign overfishing and the lack of compliance, the standing committee conducted hearings throughout Atlantic Canada on the topic of foreign overfishing in the spring of this year. They tabled a report on June 11. They made a number of recommendations. The main ones are highlighted here.
The committee's recommendations were as follows: withdraw Canada from NAFO; implement Canadian custodial management of fisheries resources on the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap; recommended the use of UNFA, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and special authorities under Bill C-29 and use both instruments to address non-compliance outside the 200-mile limit; recommended that we adopt an information campaign against overfishing.
The government tabled its response to Parliament on November 8. The recommendations and government response follows. The government concluded that withdrawal from NAFO would be contrary to Canadian interests, the concern being an unregulated fishery on the high seas. If NAFO were not in place, there would no longer be a forum for discussion with the other countries. Further, there would be no consensus on what the rules should be. There would be no consensus on the total allowable harvests or the quotas for each party. We concluded that there would be an opportunity there for an unregulated fishery, which would not be in the best interest of the fish stocks outside the 200- mile limit.
We recognize that an imperfect organization is better than no organization at all. The Canadian government is committed to staying and working within NAFO in order to improve conservation and compliance. The government also hopes to improve the observer program.
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommended that Canada implement custodial management of fisheries on the high seas. This would mean an extension of Canadian jurisdiction. As defined by the standing committee, custodial management would mean Canada would still allow foreign vessels to fish outside 200 miles; however, they would be fishing under Canadian rules, under quotas set by Canada, under conservation rules set by Canada, and under enforcements regimes set by Canada. If there were non-compliance, the non-compliance would be subject to prosecution in Canadian courts.
If we were to proceed with this recommendation, it could be implemented by one of two means. Canada could make a unilateral assertion of jurisdiction and then impose custodial management by use of force, or custodial management could be adopted by agreement or by consensus of other parties.
It is safe to say that custodial management, as any form of extension of jurisdiction, would raise strong international opposition. Those nations that fish on the high seas protect their right to fish, and any efforts to encroach on that right would be strongly resisted.
Accordingly, any Canadian implementation of custodial management on a unilateral basis would certainly require fairly significant enforcement capabilities and, in our conclusion, would run counter to Canadian interests on a number of different levels: legal, political, safety and national defence.
Attempts to renegotiate the 200-mile limit are not, in our view, feasible within a reasonable time frame. The Canadian government is committed to seek opportunities over time to try to advance Canada's role in the management of straddling stocks on our continental shelf. I have to emphasize that this will be a long-term prospect.
Finally, Minister Thibeault has announced a round table forum that will take place in St. John's this spring. The discussions will explore the different opportunities that are available for improving the conservation and management of straddling stocks on the East Coast.
Slide 10 refers to the UN Fish Agreement, UNFA. The standing committee has recommended that Canada use this international instrument to address non-compliance in NAFO. Canada ratified the agreement on August 3, 1999, and the agreement came into force on December 11, 2001. There are 32 countries that are signatory and bound by the agreement.
The UN fish stocks agreement provides a framework to improve the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory species. Among other things, it provides general principles for dealing with the management of these stocks. For example, it codifies the importance of managing on the precautionary approach. It also advocates adoption of an ecosystem approach to managing fish stocks and encourages the use of the best scientific information available.
Another feature that is very important to Canada and that we argued and fought to have within the agreement, is to have a strong enforcement regime that allows non-flag state countries to board and inspect vessels on the high seas in order to verify compliance with the rules. The agreement also provides a mandatory and binding dispute settlement procedure, which is important in terms of dealing with situations where there is a lack of agreement among parties on the best way to proceed.
The Canadian government is committed to implementing UNFA with respect to vessels that are now part of the agreement. Canada, the United States, Russia, Norway and Iceland are all subject to UNFA
The European Community and a number of member states have made a political commitment to ratify UNFA as a group but have not yet done so. Until the European Community ratifies, UNFA will have limited practical effect within NAFO.
Bill C-29 is the subject of slide 11. Bill C-29 augmented the authority under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to take action in dealing with fishing violations. This authority was used in 1995 in our dispute with Spain, and resulted in the seizure of the vessel the Estai.
The standing committee has recommended that the bill be used to authorize boarding and seizure. It has been concluded that use of these authorities would not be justifiable in the current context.
The circumstances have changed considerably since 1995. In our view, the situation is not as critical as it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the level of overfishing and non-compliance was more significant. At that time, compliance with conservation measures was poor, there were objections to the enforcement regime, there was repeated use of the objection procedure to set higher and higher unilateral quotas, there was fishing in excess of quotas, and unregulated fishing by flag of convenience vessels.
The situation is different today. We are not suggesting that NAFO is perfect, but it is one of the more highly regulated regional fisheries management organizations in the world.
Since our dispute with Spain in 1995 many of the NAFO measures have been improved. The inspection and surveillance requirements now include satellite tracking devices, 100 per cent observer coverage, and dockside inspections. There are fewer violations today and they are certainly of less magnitude than what we saw in the early 1980s and 1990s.
I will not go through the list of situations that characterize the current situation other than to say that the government is taking a number of steps to address the issue of foreign overfishing. We have an information campaign, and we are proceeding to implement UNFA. There has also been much work done at the ministerial and senior departmental level to improve the situation. In response to overfishing of quotas, we have closed Canadian ports to vessels from both Estonia and the Faroe Islands. We have adopted a new policy that will enable us to close our ports not only to flag states but also to individual vessels that do not comply with the rules. We have been working hard on managing our participation in NAFO in order to achieve improvements within that organization.
Our broad objective is to secure the benefits of sustainable fisheries on straddling and discrete stocks in the NAFO regulatory area. Our objective is to rebuild groundfish, and conserve shellfish for Canadian harvesters. We are working bilaterally with NAFO and contracting parties to improve the management measures. Our goals are to achieve a satisfactory level of compliance and ensure that harvest levels are set on scientific advice.
NAFO meets annually and met this September in Spain. Our objective at that meeting was to adopt improvements to make NAFO more effective, and we were successful in bringing about a large number of improvements. However, we did not achieve a radical transformation, but made incremental progress by adopting a number of measures that will result in NAFO being an improved institution.
Canada urged NAFO to adopt improved conservation and management measures to assist us in reducing the bycatch of species under moratorium. Regarding compliance, we have agreed to continue the 100 per cent observer program for 2003. We have a working group that has been put in place to look at alternative monitoring and control mechanisms on a pilot basis that will attempt to improve surveillance and therefore improve the ability to detect violations. We adopted a new process to assess the level of compliance within the NAFO regulatory area.
NAFO will now analyse compliance whereas in the past Canada had performed this function. NAFO will call the parties to be accountable for their non-compliance.
We achieved an increased TAC for yellowtail flounder of 1,500 tonnes. That is particularly important, because the increase is consistent with scientific advice that indicates that stocks are rebuilding. Yellowtail has grown from 6,000 tonnes in 1997 to the projected figure of 14,500 tonnes in 2003. Canada has almost 100 per cent of the yellowtail quota.
In division 3L, an agreement was made on a TAC and quota arrangement for shrimp. Canada receives 83 per cent of that resource. There was a commitment made to obtain scientific advice to enable us to regulate the unregulated stock of 3O redfish. A TAC of 7,500 tonnes was set for oceanic redfish, which provides a new fishing opportunity for Canada and other parties. The groundfish stocks moratoria will be maintained.
While these things are positive, not everything is perfect. The scientists recommended that Greenland halibut be harvested at 36,000 tonnes; NAFO set the TAC at 42,000 tonnes.
Did we meet all of our objectives at NAFO? No, we did not. However, the overall outcome met the majority of the objectives we had set for the meeting. With the exception of the TAC for Greenland halibut, we believe Canada made significant progress on a number of issues related to compliance and the establishment of sustainable TACs.
We believe that NAFO can make improvements and that they are prepared to respond positively to the need to reform. Much as we wish it were different, there are no quick fixes in these international meetings; every improvement is made in small steps and measured over a period of time. While NAFO is far from perfect we believe it is better to work with that organization than not have an international fisheries management regime at all.
I welcome any questions you may have.
The Chairman: Please tell us why Canada had not yet ratified UNCLOS.
Mr. Chamut: Honourable senators, the law of the sea was negotiated about 20 years ago, and at that time a number of concerns were identified. Rather than list them from memory and possibly misinform you, I would prefer that the representative from the Department of Foreign Affairs give you that information.
Senator Meighen: I am trying to understand the differences and relationships between NAFO, UNFA and UNCLOS. I would like to know just which ones have been ratified and signed. A chart would be helpful, but that will be for another day.
You have stated that we have agreed to independent observers on all the ships. Unless the observers are compromised, is there any way they could not detect a violation of NAFO agreements? How could they miss a violation? Is it possible for an inspector to be fooled?
Mr. Chamut: Yes, an observer can be fooled. These are very large vessels that have complete harvesting and processing operations on board. It is not impossible for an observer to be below decks when a net is hauled back and therefore miss a violation. Each vessel has one observer. However, these vessels operate 24 hours a day and the observer is not always on board. It follows that while the observer is not on board violations may occur.
The other problem may be the independent observers. In some cases, the observers are not entirely independent. While that situation is against the rules we have seen it happen.
For the most part we have found that the observers give us an excellent summary of what happens on board most of the fishing vessels. They provide us with information on the area of harvest, the amount of fish that are being taken, and the sort of gear that is being used. Any instance where there is non-compliance is recorded and the report goes to the flag state and then to countries like Canada and others that have an interest in looking at them. Unfortunately, in some cases, the observers' report cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.
The system works pretty well. The problem is that oftentimes there is not adequate follow-up. Even though the problem has been identified the member state may not always perform the appropriate follow-up once that vessel reaches home.
Senator Meighen: Is that the only recourse, legal action against the offending ship or member state?
Mr. Chamut: The responsibility for controlling the activities of the vessel resides with the member state. They take action within their own courts in instances where a vessel has been identified as being non-compliant with the rules. The vessel might lose its licence, it might be fined, or there is also the possibility of being denied access to the NAFO fishing zone. These measures may be taken but they are taken by the flag state. They cannot be taken by Canada.
Senator Meighen: Must NAFO decisions be reached unanimously before they become a decision of the organization?
Mr. Chamut: No. NAFO tries to operate by consensus. We try to find resolutions, set TACs and set sharing arrangements that represent the consensus around the table. In the absence of consensus, we revert to voting, and then it is simply majority rule.
There is a lot of difficulty that is involved in a voting arrangement.
The difficulty of a vote that results in 10 agreeing and eight opposing is that the any one of the eight opposing parties might resent the outcome. Any one of those eight can object because each member around that table is sovereign. With the right to object, they then can introduce their own quota that they consider more appropriate for their needs.
Senator Meighen: Do they set the quota for themselves or for everyone?
Mr. Chamut: They set it for themselves. That was the situation in 1980s and the 1990s: many parties were setting unilateral quotas. It makes more sense to try to operate by consensus. Any party in any one of these regional fisheries management organizations has the right to object and to withdraw itself from the arrangement that is agreed to at NAFO and to set their own course of action.
Senator Cook: You say that within NAFO the decisions are made by consensus. Has NAFO ever given any thought or consideration to a tribunal? You say that everyone around the table is independent. Would it help to strengthen the position of the countries if there were a tribunal?
Mr. Chamut: I need to know what you mean by a tribunal. Do you mean a decision-making body?
Senator Cook: Yes, I mean an agreed upon body within the larger body that would constitute a tribunal whose decisions would be binding rather than everyone making their own decision. Has anyone ever put that on the table?
Mr. Chamut: I am not aware of that as a specific proposal in the last six or eight years. I can tell you that the convention that established NAFO is abundantly clear about the sovereign right of parties to object.
We have tried to get a dispute settlement procedure adopted, and there has been very strong resistance to most forms of dispute settlement. There are concerns that it might, in some way, bind parties and cause them to lose some of their sovereignty around the table.
We believe that the UN fish stocks agreement is important because it includes a dispute settlement procedure that allows for binding decisions to be made. In instances where there may be disputes, it would be a very powerful means to try to resolve them.
There are efforts within NAFO to develop a dispute settlement procedure. Our view is that the dispute settlement procedure in the UN fish stocks agreement is a powerful and effective tool. Rather than have NAFO adopt a dispute settlement procedure that may be less effective we would wait until the UN agreement comes into effect and then rely on their dispute settlement procedure. That would be binding on those parties that are signatory to UNFA.
Senator Cook: It seems that we must move beyond consensus. Sooner or later, we will have to discipline ourselves within those bodies to do what is in the best interests of all of us.
You say that the dispute settlement is not at the implementation stage yet. Is that because of lack of scientific data or evidence-based information? Why is it not at the implementation stage?
Mr. Chamut: There is a dispute settlement procedure that has been laid out in great detail in the UN fish stocks agreement. Unfortunately, within NAFO, there are only five parties that have ratified and that are subject to that agreement. Once that agreement comes into effect for more and more parties, it will provide the mechanism to deal with disputes that may arise from time to time.
The question is a good one, and you may wonder why it has not been put in place. It is a very difficult topic to get agreement around the table. In effect you are asking parties to give up their sovereignty and be subject to some other decision-making body that may affect their interest in significant ways.
Senator Cook: Sooner or later, we will all have to give and take a little. If not, we are doomed to failure. When will that realization come? Five countries have ratified out of how many?
Mr. Chamut: There is a total of 18 parties that are members of NAFO.
Senator Cook: How can Canada advance this subject? What can we do to help? Sooner or later, someone will have to hit someone over the head with a stick or codfish, if you can find one.
Mr. Chamut: There are two parties within the European Community that have not yet ratified the UN fish stocks agreement. The EEC has said that once they do that they will ratify as a block. We are working with our colleagues in the European Community to encourage them to ratify the UN fish stocks agreement. It has taken much longer than we would have anticipated.
Senator Cook: I hear negative comments about NAFO all the time. There must be something that we can do to proceed.
Mr. Chamut: The difficulty is that Canada sees this issue from a very close, personal perspective. These fish stocks are enormously important to communities in Atlantic Canada. We have a small boat fleet that has been devastated by the loss of groundfish. We do not have another place to fish. Many other parties around the table are coming from long distances to fish in this area.
Senator Cook: I notice Korea and Japan are fishing that area.
Mr. Chamut: We have Korea, Japan, Russia and a number of European countries that are fishing their distant water fishing fleets. Their perspective is entirely different than ours. They believe that NAFO is already extraordinarily regulated. Many people do not agreed that NAFO has effective rules. That is certainly our perspective in Canada. However, if you compare the rules in NAFO with many of the other commissions that are similar to NAFO, NAFO's requirements are far more stringent.
We do not feel that the requirements are adequate, but there are many parties that desire to see the rules substantially relaxed, because these rules often lead to increased costs and, in their view, diminish the effectiveness of their fishing operations.
We have been pressing for increasingly stringent rules. We believe there must be that kind of discipline and sensible approach if we are to have sustainable fisheries. Others around the table do not share the same view.
Senator Meighen: How often does NAFO meet?
Mr. Chamut: NAFO meets, for one week, once a year. It also has a number of intercessional meetings during the course of the year. At these meeting a number of subsidiary bodies work on specific tasks. There are four or five of those meetings every year. The institution itself only meets once a year and deals with all of its business and sets the agenda for the following year.
Senator Meighen: At that annual meeting, are NGOs allowed or encouraged to participate?
Mr. Chamut: It is a question of what you mean by ``participate.''
Senator Meighen: Would they be able to receive observer status?
Mr. Chamut: There is observer status. The Canadian delegation includes people who represent many different aspects of our fishing industry. I am the head of the Canadian delegation that includes: key leaders from the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia; representatives of the harvesting sector; the processing sector; and members of the provincial governments. It is a fairly eclectic group. We join in common cause to try to advance the Canadian interests.
Senator Meighen: Are there any NGOs that have been accorded observer status?
Mr. Chamut: There are some that periodically attend. There is not a large number. I could jokingly say that they probably only wished to appear once.
Mr. Chamut: There is not a lot of NGO interest, but there are rules governing participation of observers and they can participate.
Senator Phalen: I am fairly new to this committee and almost brand new to the issue of straddling stocks. Is the straddling stock issue unique to Canada, or are there other countries with similar concerns?
Mr. Chamut: Some of the South Pacific countries have stocks that extend beyond 200 miles. There are also some similar situations with Australia and New Zealand. There are probably other situations where the Continental Shelf extends past 200 miles, but we think that the problem may be more acute in Canada, given the size of the Continental Shelf and the value of the fish stocks that exist outside the 200-mile limit.
Senator Phalen: Is there international support for the extension of an exclusive economic zone?
Mr. Chamut: No. Many countries are quite satisfied with the status quo and are prepared to support the 200-mile limit, but would not be prepared to support an extension of the line beyond 200 miles. There are a few countries that may be of like mind to Canada. However, by and large, they would certainly not be a substantial number relative to the countries that have distant water fishing fleets that would be resistant to any extension beyond 200 miles.
Senator Adams: I would like to know how far you could go beyond the 200-mile limit. Foreigners like to fish close to our borders. Can you explain that? You said that countries are fishing outside that 200-mile limit. There is a concern that sometimes our stocks from outside the 200-mile limit might come more into the area indicated here on the map. Our concern is that cod has disappeared as the result of over fishing by foreigners. How can you ensure more control in areas that have been fished outside the 200-mile limit, especially with those fish that come into our area? Perhaps you do not understand my question. Is area 6H controlled by the United States?
Mr. Chamut: I am not sure if I fully understand the question. The 200-mile limit is indicated on the map. Within that limit, Canada has full authority to manage and control the fisheries. Within 200 miles, no foreign vessels are allowed to fish unless they are given a special license by Canada. There may be a few situations where we might get into an issue with a joint venture with a foreign vessel, but there are few at the present time.
You are correct about area 6; that area is considered U.S. waters.
Senator Adams: My second question relates to Greenland halibut, where quotas are supposed to be 36,000 tonnes and yet it has gone up to 42,000 tonnes. Is the fish that plentiful that the quota has been put up? In the Pacific area, with the 200-mile limit, the Greenland halibut travel from this area on the map up to the other area.
Mr. Chamut: The Greenland halibut fishery is conducted in a broad range of area, from what we call area OA, up in the Davis Strait, down to Baffin Island to the coast of Labrador.
All of the foreign harvest of Greenland halibut occurs in 3L, 3M, 3N and 3O. That is where the foreign fleets fish outside the 200-mile zone.
Canada, on the other hand, has the opportunity of fishing anywhere within the 200-mile limit because the stock reaches all the way up the coast of Labrador into the Davis Strait. However, the only area where the foreign fleets can harvest Greenland halibut is in the deep water along the edge of the continental shelf.
Senator Adams: What does TAC stand for?
Mr. Chamut: TAC is the total allowable catch.
Senator Adams: Why does Canada have control over 97.5 per cent of this area? Is it because of an agreement with foreign countries?
Mr. Chamut: Canada has 97.5 per cent of the yellowtail flounder because the shares that are set between countries reflect historic shares. If you go back 20 years, 30 years and more, Canadian vessels harvested the majority of the yellowtail flounder. It is on the basis of that historic catch and the historic dependence of Canadian vessels that we have the 97.5 per cent share. That is recognized as a share within NAFO. There is not much debate about it. It was agreed that Canada would take that share on an annual basis.
Senator Adams: Are they able to sell those quotas or shares to foreigners?
Mr. Chamut: If we did not catch our quota, we could enter into an arrangement with a foreign vessel. We would then licence that vessel under Canadian legislation, and we would authorize them to harvest any surplus quota. However, given the limited fishing opportunities that exist compared to 10 or 15 years ago, there is certainly no difficulty in Canada catching its share and there is no interest in sharing it with foreign vessels.
Senator Adams: Does Bill C-29 consider only Canada, or does the bill consider foreign vessels as well?
Mr. Chamut: The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act has been amended and has authorized, under certain circumstances, Canadian enforcement action on foreign vessels operating outside the 200-mile limit. It has been used on occasion to board and seize vessels that are so-called ``flag of convenience vessels.'' That was the case in the incident in 1994 with the Christina Logos.
In 1995, another amendment authorized enforcement action to be taken against vessels from Spain operating outside of the 200-mile limit.
Senator Mahovlich: In 1996, significant progress was made in NAFO, resulting in part from pressure generated by Canada's unilateral actions in 1995. What unilateral pressures did we apply?
Mr. Chamut: Senator, in 1995, we had serious concerns about the activities of foreign vessels because they were not operating in a manner consistent with good fishing practices. The European Union had set a unilateral quota for Greenland halibut. In our view, that quota had the potential to endanger the health of the stock. Therefore, in 1995, Canada, using its own enforcement vessels, arrested and seized a Spanish trawler that was operating outside 200 miles. That trawler was called the Estai. It was brought into port in St. John's, Newfoundland, where we laid charges against the captain of the Estai and its owners.
Senator Mahovlich: Did we lay charges?
Mr. Chamut: We did, although they were later withdrawn. However, Canada effectively exercised enforcement authority on a foreign vessel operating outside 200 miles. It was a significant event that involved the arrest of the Spanish vessel, following a chase on the high seas and shots being fired across its bow. I know that if you have interest in learning more about the event, you can certainly pick up Mr. Tobin's new book, in which he describes the event in great detail.
Senator Mahovlich: Has your delegation, which attends these NAFO meetings, ever though to bring along a senate committee member as an observer?
Mr. Chamut: Senator, it is not be my place to extend such an invitation. The meetings can become quite tedious. Last year, the minister of fisheries for the Province of Newfoundland attended, and there have been other politicians present as part of of the Canadian delegation.
Senator Mahovlich: I thought it might be a good idea if one of the senators attended.
The Chairman: To follow up, who would be in charge of sending an invitation, should Senator Mahovlich wish to attend?
Mr. Chamut: The appropriate course, senator, would be through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Thibeault.
Senator Hubley: Would modifying the type of vessels that are used for fishing, or the method of catching fish make a difference to lessen the opportunity to overfish? I have heard that some fishing practices cause damage to the ocean floor. If different fishing practices were applied, possibly there would be less damage.
Mr. Chamut: Every type of fishing activity has its advantages and disadvantages. There are proponents and opponents, when it comes to virtually every type of fishing gear.
The majority of the harvesting by foreign fleets is done using large vessels with bottom-trawl to catch groundfish. The bottom-trawl method employs a large net that is towed behind the vessel. It captures the fish that live on or just above the bottom. There are concerns that bottom trawling disturbs the benthic substrate to the detriment of some of the organisms that live there. However, this it is a hotly debated topic. Nonetheless, there are some highly sensitive areas where we do not want bottom-trawling vessels to fish. There are also areas of corals and that kind of marine life that simply could not survive such fishing activity. Many of those areas are being closed to bottom trawling.
Foreign vessels would not be prepared to trade the bottom trawling for, say, hook and line. It simply would not be an economically feasible operation for them. They would strongly resist because it would disrupt the normal course of how they have conducted their business in that area for a very long time.
The Chairman: The U.S. joined NAFO in 1995. Since that time have they shown much interest in NAFO? Does it involve itself in the fishery of the straddling stocks off the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap?
Mr. Chamut: The United States did join in 1995 and since then have been active participants in most of the meetings. The United States and Canada obviously have some shared views with respect to issues such as the precautionary approach and sustainable fisheries management practices. It has been very positive for Canada to have the United States in that forum because we can work together to achieve shared objectives.
On the one hand, the United States has been a very effective partner. However, I know that from their perspective, they would like to have more fishing opportunity. They attend the meetings. They spend money to support the organization, but they do not have very much fishing opportunity.
The U.S. is concerned about wanting to get ``their fair share'' at the NAFO meetings. At the present time they have meagre quotas because they are very recent entrants. Harvest shares are based on your historic catches, and as a recent entrant the United States does not have very large shares. That is of concern to them. They have raised this point at each meeting. They are interested in having access to a larger harvest opportunity.
The Chairman: In slide 11 you noted that the situation today is not as critical as it was in the late the 1980s and early 1990s. Could that be because the current stocks are in worse shape in the NAFO regulatory area than they were back in the late 1980s and 1990s?
Mr. Chamut: Part of the changed circumstances is that stock situation is much changed from what it was at that time. In the 1980s and the 1990s, there was a large amount of unilateral action taken by parties that their own quotas. That situation rarely occurs now; I can think of only one instance where that has happened in the last seven years.
A sceptic might say that it has turned around because the stocks are not there. If you have that thought, I remind you about yellowtail flounder. Yellowtail flounder quota has grown to 14,500 tonnes. If people were going to object, they could certainly object on something like yellowtail and they have not done so. There are also shrimp quotas where people could object, but they have not done so. There are situations where a change in behaviour has been reflected. It is a reflection of the importance of being able to manage in a more sustainable way.
The Chairman: Shrimp is Canadian managed in international waters, so shrimp would not be considered there. Shrimp, as a sedentary species, would not be considered, correct?
Mr. Chamut: Scallops and crabs are considered sedentary species. Shrimp live just above the bottom and for that reason are not considered sedentary. They are not regarded in the same manner as crab and scallops. Shrimp, in fact, are managed by NAFO. Foreign fleets have harvested between 45,000 tonnes and 50,000 tons of shrimp on the Flemish Cap.
The Chairman: The observers are from the NAFO countries.If the vessel is from the EU would the observer be from the EU?
Mr. Chamut: Yes, that is true almost exclusively, although there are some exceptions. For example, Norway finds it more cost effective to use Canadian observers. Of course, we have a very positive and cooperative relationship with Norway. The Norwegians fish in a very responsible manner. They use Canadian observers, and we have full confidence in the work they do. Our relationship with Norway is unique. By and large most of the parties use observers that come from their own member state government.
The Chairman: We have been informed that the North Sea cod stocks are in terrible shape. Will there be increased pressure as a result of this collapse? The European Community will have to harvest elsewhere. What will it cost to have this pressure placed on our stocks?
Mr. Chamut: That is a very good question, senator. It is the same question that I asked our representative in Brussels.
The Chairman: It is happening with the Irish stocks now.
Mr. Chamut: Yes. It is a difficult question to answer. Obviously, we would be concerned about any displacement of effort from that area to Canada. At this point, I do not expect that there will be a large displacement for two reasons.
First, many of the fleets that will be affected by the cod collapse in the North Sea tend to be smaller in-shore boats not unlike Canada's fleet.
Second, there is not much harvest opportunity in the Canadian zone. Therefore, some of the larger vessels displaced from the North Sea will probably look for other fishing opportunities.
That it is a good question and it is a situation that we are watching. We will be looking at it to ensure that we are not recipients of a larger number of foreign vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area.
The Chairman: I am not suggesting there should be a unilateral custodial management of the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap, but would countries be receptive to Canada extending the jurisdiction?
Mr. Chamut: That goes to the previous question about who also has a straddling stock problem. There may be some parties, small island nations in the South Pacific that may give some support.
We have looked at this and concluded that the overwhelming majority would be quite resistant to any change being made from the current 200 miles.
We noticed when we went through the negotiation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement that there were a number of parties with which Canada did align in order to get that agreement through. We tend to work with those countries that include Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific islands. There are a large number of parties that would simply be strongly and very violently opposed to any sort of an increase.
We do not see it as something we can work on in the short term. In the long term, we would like to try to continue to improve our ability to manage these straddling stocks because it is much more difficult. It creates lots of challenges. However, it is a very difficult thing to see doing it in the short term and getting international consensus to do it. It is a very long-term sort of proposition.
The Chairman: Spain and Portugal joined the EU not too long before the problems of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Could it have been that Spain and Portugal were using their newfound friends in the EU to flex their muscles and overfish until such time as Bill C-29 cut them off?
Mr. Chamut: I do not know if I would say they were flexing their muscles as parts of the EU. However, there is no question that there was a coincidence in the timing. There was a large degree of overfishing and we had extremely difficult and quite negative relationships with the EC, as well as with Spain and Portugal, over their activities. We were talking about overfishing that, in today's context, beggars the imagination. You can go back and look at the amounts and see that there were hundreds of thousands of metric tonnes of fish taken over and above the sustainable levels of harvest.
The Chairman: I was looking at the figures a few days ago and they were staggering. Did you say that the observer reports can not be used in a court of law. Is that correct?
Mr. Chamut: That is correct.
The Chairman: Would Bill C-29 have conformed to international law, or should I ask the international people that question?
Mr. Chamut: I encourage you to do that, senator. As a mere fishery biologist, it would certainly not be appropriate for me to comment on international law. However, after this session, I would be delighted to have a private conversation with you.
The Chairman: Certainly.
Senator Cook: What is the annual cost to Canada to be a member of NAFO?
Mr. Chamut: There are two types of costs. One is that we contribute the lion's share of the money to the operation of the institution itself. NAFO operates with an executive secretary and a number of staff members. I think Canada pays about 60 per cent of the infrastructure cost to keep the organization going. That figure is around $500,000 to $600,000 a year, which is about 60 per cent of the operational costs.
Each country contributes money to the operation, but we have the lion's share because we are the so-called ``coastal state'' with the largest interest.
We also incur program costs that probably run between $10 million to $15 million a year. This money is spent on surveillance and enforcement activities. We have aerial surveillance that operates out of Newfoundland. We have a contract with provincial airlines where they put up aircraft and we use them to observe and monitor the behaviour and location of the foreign fleets.
We also have patrol vessels that we operate outside the 200-mile limit. Through the use of those platforms, we monitor the activities of foreign fleets. We board and inspect these vessels. The overall cost of the aerial surveillance and the vessel surveillance is about $15 million annually.
Senator Cook: When we are discussing straddling stocks are we talking about the stocks that are on the Flemish Cap, the nose and tail, or are we talking about a much larger area?
Mr. Chamut: A straddling stock is stock that exists both inside the 200-mile limit and outside of it. This stock swims out to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. These are the fish that live on the continental shelf. If you look at the map, you will see that there is a tiny slice of the shelf in the nose and a tiny slice that goes outside on the tail. Generally, straddling stocks are defined as the fish that are within the 200 miles and on both the nose and tail. The stocks that are in area 3M, which is the Flemish Cap, are what we call discrete stocks. They are differentiated from straddling stocks because the stocks on the Flemish Cap usually stay on the Flemish Cap and do not go into the Canadian 200-mile limit.
Senator Cook: Are you saying that the fish inside the limit are safe, but the other fish are not?
Mr. Chamut: The fish inside the 200-mile limit are safe, but have the annoying tendency to swim outside the 200- mile boundary. When they do they are subject to harvesting by foreign fleets.
Senator Cook: Is there scientific or evidenced-based information that this particular area is a lucrative spawning ground? Have there been any studies done on habitat in that general area? Are we destroying it?
Mr. Chamut: Studies have shown that certain areas of the Grand Banks are important for both spawning and nursery areas.
Senator Cook: Is that in this straddling stock area?
Mr. Chamut: Yes. We are talking about the continental shelf, and that includes both the nose and the tail. Some areas are more important than others for things like spawning, rearing and nursery areas for some of the juveniles. There is an area called the southeast shoal that is a shallow area that is a nursery area for certain species and a rearing area for others. We have actually proposed that those areas be closed entirely to fishing activity. That suggestion has not yet been accepted.
Senator Cook: Do I understand you correctly that the scientists recommended a certain number of metric tonnes be harvested, and, yet NAFO set their own quotas anyway? Is that correct? If so, what is the point?
Mr. Chamut: Senator, scientists do not set the quota.
Senator Cook: They recommend the quota.
Mr. Chamut: Scientists make a recommendation. They go through a particular series of analyses and say, as in the case of Greenland halibut that they feel that catches should not exceed 36,000 tonnes. That advice is then given to NAFO. It is examined and debated around the table with all 18 parties present.
There were a number of questions raised at the meeting last September regarding the validity of the scientific analysis. There is always room for debate and different opinions.
Canada supported having a TAC set at 36,000 metric tonnes. This sparked a lively debate as to whether that was an appropriate level of harvest. In addition, the point was brought to the attention of the commission that, even at a TAC of 42,000 metric tonnes, it is unlikely that catches will exceed 36,000 metric tonnes. Canada does not always catch its quota of Greenland halibut for reasons that I will not go into right now. That is a complicated issue.
In the end the TAC was set at 42,000 metric tonnes. We do not believe that is a good way of managing; however, it was adopted because it was part of a consensus and it was unlikely that catches will exceed 36,000.
Senator Cook: Who is responsible for gathering the scientific information? Is it all the members of NAFO or primarily Canada? Who puts the information on the table for NAFO to make their decision?
Mr. Chamut: NAFO has a scientific council made up of scientists from all the member states. These scientists work on issues such as TACs and stock abundance. Data is collected by all of the member states. Because of our interest and proximity to the zone, Canada provides a substantial amount of the scientific information. Other parties do as well. For example, there are scientific surveys carried out by Spain, Portugal and Russia. They have scientific activities in the regulatory area.
The scientific council studies the information and it becomes the basis for the recommendations they make to the fisheries commission of NAFO.
Senator Cook: That is certainly a positive statement. I have heard so many bad things about NAFO, that I am pleased to hear something good.
Mr. Chamut: I am not here as an apologist for NAFO. There are many things about NAFO that are frustrating and, in my opinion NAFO does not operate in a manner consistent with sustainable fishing practices. However, NAFO does have good scientists and they provide good analysis and advice. NAFO also provides us with a forum within which we are able to have more effective regulation of fishing activities outside the 200-mile limit.
It is by no means a perfect organization. However, we are certainly working hard to find ways to improve it. We do not suggest that NAFO does everything we would like or that it meets all our objectives. However, we certainly believe that it provides a reasonable basis for parties to cooperate in the management of that resource. We are still looking for ways to improve it, and that is what we hope to do over the next couple of years.
Senator Adams: I see in your presentation says that between the 3L shrimp as of 2000 and the redfish as of 2002, does that mean you may not be able to catch any more? I am looking at your brief on page 4 and the reference to 3L shrimp.
Mr. Chamut: Senator, that means is that up until 2000, there was no fishery on shrimp in division 3L. Prior to that time, most of the shrimp fishing occurred further north. Over the last seven years there has been an increase in the abundance and distribution of shrimp further to the south. We now find there is more shrimp in division 3L.
In 2000, we were able to establish a fishery for 3L shrimp at a TAC of 6,000 tonnes. That is a fairly new fishery. That reference to ``2000'' is to the year. That indicates that was the first year that we began to have a fishery in that particular zone.
Senator Adams: Referring to the area on the map between the 200-mile line and area 1F, does that mean other countries have more control here?
Mr. Chamut: Division 1F is international waters. That area is regulated by NAFO.
The Chairman: As I understand it, there are two schools of thought concerning of the straddling stocks. One school believes that it is better to stay with NAFO because it is better to have something than nothing at all. The other school of thought calls for unilateral action to custodial management. Has there been any other proposal put forward to solve this issue?
Mr. Chamut: Honourable senators have captured the current debate. Indeed, some people are advocating strong unilateral action. The government, in its response, is effectively saying that it will take a strategy, which is to improve NAFO, to work hard to get the UN fish stocks agreement implemented and, in the long term, look at other ways to improve the management of straddling stocks.
The minister has announced that we will be having a so-called forum on straddling stocks in St. John's in late winter. The forum will look at current international law concerning straddling stocks, and see whether there are any new ideas or approaches that can be adopted to provide us with better conservation techniques and sustainable fishing practices outside the 200-mile limit. International law is not static. We know that it can change. We are bringing experts together to see whether they have ideas that we might profitably pursue. The forum has the potential to answer your question.
The Chairman: The waters off of Saint-Pierre et Miquelon are very close to some of the problem areas off the south coast of Newfoundland. How are the fish doing out there? Are we going to have problems with the straddling stock in that area?
That area is very narrow. I am quite sure that Pierre Trudeau once said that the problem with fish is that they swim. Are there any problems that you can foresee in that area?
Mr. Chamut: The area that is shared with Saint-Pierre et Miquelon is called division 3PS. The cod in that area tends to be more robust.
We have an agreement that governs the fishing and sharing arrangements we have with Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. We have annual bilateral discussions with them concerning the implementation of those arrangements. We also have reciprocal arrangements with Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. There has not been much debate or dispute. There are a couple of areas where we have been disappointed in the outcome, but it is not because of the behaviour of Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. It has more to do with the behaviour of the scallop stock in the area to which we had negotiated access.
The Chairman: Even though it is part of France, it is not EU stock. It is considered Saint-Pierre et Miquelon stock.
Mr. Chamut: Exactly. The European Union represents Spain and Portugal and the other members of the European Community at NAFO. Saint-Pierre et Miquelon sit at the NAFO table with a separate voice. They tend to share many of the interests that we do because of their geographic location.
The Chairman: Mr. Chamut, we would like to be able to send you questions at a later date. We are hopeful that you will have your officials respond. That would be most helpful to this committee.
We appreciate the time you spent with us this evening. As you can see from the interest from the interest of the members, this has been very productive for us. We want members to become more familiar with this important issue that faces Canadian fish stocks.
Mr. Chamut: Honourable senators, it has certainly been a pleasure to be with you tonight. I know that this is a complicated, difficult and important topic. It is one that occupies an enormous amount of professional and personal time. We are all dedicated to trying to find a better way to do it.
We appreciate the efforts of the committee members. I do offer the honourable senators that if there are additional questions, we would be delighted to answer them. We would even be delighted to return and have another session with you if that would be helpful.
The Chairman: We may well take you up on that.
The committee adjourned.