Community Management in the Inshore Groundfish Fishery on the Canadian Scotian Shelf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
101 Community management in the inshore groundfish fishery on the Canadian Scotian Shelf F.G. Peacock Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Maritimes Region PO Box 1035, Dartmouth Nova Scotia, B2Y 4T3 Canada [email protected] Christina Annand Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Maritimes Region PO Box 1035, Dartmouth Nova Scotia, B2Y 4T3 Canada [email protected] 1. HISTORY LEADING TO COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT The groundfish fishery in Atlantic Canada is arguably the most complex fishery in Canada. Groundfish is the generalized term for a number of species of fish, mostly gadoid that are harvested separately or collectively by many fleets involving thousands of fishermen throughout Atlantic Canada. This chapter will focus on the inshore, fixed-gear sector of relatively small, inshore vessels 10–14 metres in length. This sector uses handline, longline and gillnet gear to harvest groundfish along the Scotian Shelf, in the Bay of Fundy and on Georges Bank (see Figure 1). Groundfish fishing by this sector involves seven separate and distinct fleets harvesting mostly cod, haddock, pollock, flatfish, halibut, redfish and a variety of bycatch species. Following establishment of the 200-mile limit in 1977, Canada began to develop an extensive domestic groundfish fishery that utilized both inshore and offshore fixed and mobile gear. Harvest expansion in the 1980s was followed by significant declines in species populations and associated harvest levels. Harvest moratoria were implemented for several cod resources in Atlantic Canada FIGURE 1 during the early 1990s and several of these Scotian Shelf, Bay of Fundy, and Georges Bank fishing areas moratoria continue today. On the Scotian Shelf, these included haddock stocks and cods stocks in areas 4V and 4W. The cod stocks in this area were formerly among of the largest in Atlantic Canada. These closures, along with significant declines in other groundfish resources on the Scotian Shelf, have resulted in significant declines in employment. The management response to the problems facing the groundfish fleets has moved forward on the basis of a two- part strategy: (a) an expansion of enterprise Source: Peacock and Hansen 2000. allocations (EA)/individual transferable 102 Case studies on fisheries self-governance PHOTO 1 Cape Islander fishing vessels characteristic of the maritime inshore fishery quotas (ITQ) for vessels greater than 45′ and (b), a new community quota approach for the inshore fixed-gear less than 45′ sector. This paper addresses the latter. In the 1970s and 1980s, the inshore, fixed-gear assemblage was a diverse group of over 3000 licence holders. Photo 1 shows the types of boat active in this fishery. They had varying degrees of economic aspirations and there was little cohesion among fleets, communities or port clusters. Management approaches devised through two task force studies in the 1980s considered these inshore groups to be of little significance in the overall scheme of management, as their effort seemed minor compared to the large mobile gear (Kirby, 1982; Hache, 1989). By the early 1990s, this sector remained without an overarching management approach and functioned within a “least common denominator” management philosophy. The management approaches were fraught with difficulties and tailored to no one group. The need for change was apparent. Attempts began in the mid 1990s to manage the inshore fixed-gear (FG) sector. Trip limits were used to tighten controls on effort. Previously (see Hache, 1989), the smallest vessels, while numerous, were not felt to be a major burden on resource viability. When quotas were reached, vessels under 13 metres were permitted to continue fishing on a limited basis through trip limits, typically 3 300 lbs/trip, until the end of the fishing year. Many of these small vessels were handliners, so this treatment supported both small communities and the associated small vessels. These flexible arrangements for small operators (less than 13 metres) were eventually eliminated in an attempt to bring harvest activities in line with resource abundance. However, the development of management for this diverse sector proved long and circuitous. During the process, many associations that represented inshore, fixed-gear interests arose. This resulted in intense competition within the advisory committees for allocation advantage. The process often culminated with demands for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to intercede to change sharing arrangements. The priority given to continued viability of the inshore fleet resulted in destructive management decisions and often in overfishing of dwindling fish resource. 2. THE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 2.1 Origins The new community approach was introduced on a trial basis in 1995 in the Halifax west area of Nova Scotia as a one-year trial. It became effective for all fleets in 1996. This was followed by a 3-year test application beginning in 1997, which introduced community management boards for all inshore fixed-gear fishers. This resulted in the establishment of eight community zones. The approach recognised differences within the inshore sector by using either geography or “like-minded” views to define fleet structures. The term “like-minded” refers to the recognition of groups of fishers who have common management objectives. The trial process became the community-based management approach, which has operated continually with little modification and within the same 8 community zones as in 1997. Community management in the inshore groundfish fishery on the Canadian Scotian Shelf 103 TABLE 1 Inshore fleet composition, 1995 and 2005 Vessel size Mobile gear Fixed gear (67% of inshore allocation) (33% of inshore allocation) 1995 2005 ITQ introduced 1995 2005 ITQ introduced 10–13.7 m 500 92 n/a 2542 532 n/a 13.7–19.8 m 361 52 1991 66 20 1999 Total 861 144 2608 552 TABLE 2 Inshore licences by area, 1996–2005 Year Eastern PAFFA Southwestern Yarmouth Lunenberg Digby Shelburne Total Nova Scotia New Brunswick Queens 1996 54 45 97 106 177 151 644 1 274 1997 52 40 97 127 155 154 513 1 138 1998 50 40 63 85 133 104 394 869 1999 46 37 41 64 118 83 382 771 2000 36 34 41 74 102 90 335 712 2001 41 30 53 87 81 93 274 659 2002 43 32 48 87 78 95 257 640 2003 43 32 46 75 77 82 237 592 2004 36 19 41 34 56 68 182 436 2005 21 20 37 43 45 62 156 384 TABLE 3 Locations of Community Management Boards and targeted species Southern Eastern Nova Halifax West Queens Shelburne A Shelburne B Yarmouth Digby New Scotia County/ Brunswick Lunenburg Cod Cod Cod Cod Cod Cod Cod Cod Haddock Haddock Haddock Haddock Haddock Haddock Haddock Haddock Pollock Pollock Pollock Pollock Pollock Pollock Pollock Pollock Halibut Skate/ Halibut Halibut Halibut Halibut Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish Dogfish As a start, vessels within the 13.8–19.8 m category were excluded and were treated as a ninth community group. This allowed an independent management application for a relatively small number of vessels. The inshore fixed-gear fleets had objected to any quota transfers between mobile and fixed-gear, notwithstanding the choice of management regime. Separating the 13.8 m–19.8 m vessels from the rest of the inshore fleet allowed this sub-group to consider a broader ITQ approach that would not have been possible within the inshore fleet. An ITQ approach was adopted for these vessels in 1999. The change allowed this part of the fleet to interact with the inshore mobile gear (>19.8 m) fleet and allowed for transfers of ITQ between the two fleets. Table 1 lists the fleet compositions at the time of implementation in 1995 and ten years later in 2005. The number of active participants in all vessel types has been reduced, largely due to quota reductions and to participation in the lucrative lobster and crab fisheries, as well as through self-rationalization plans implemented by community management boards. Table 2 shows that these decreases have been spread across all seven communities. Table 3 shows the species that are targeted by the respective community-based fisheries. 2.2 Structure of inshore community management 2.2.1 Defining communities To implement community management for the inshore fleet under 13.8 metres, three steps were required. The communities (ultimately eight) had to be defined. Allocations had to 104 Case studies on fisheries self-governance be made to each community. And a governing FIGURE 2 Geographic extent of community groups structure for each community was required. A series of eight communities were established, based on seven geographic areas (see Figure 2). Six of these areas and seven of the community groups, were in South-West Sydney Nova Scotia. In most cases, the geographic partitioning also supported the “like- minded” approach favoured by government. Industry support for the geographic areas St Andrews 1 Southern New Brunswick was based in part on the assumption that Halifax 2 Digby/Upper Bay 3 Yarmouth the geographic criterion would prevent ITQ 4 Shelburne Yarmouth 5 Queens/Lunenburg implementation, which was opposed by 6 Halifax West 7 Eastern Nova Scotia most fixed-gear operators. A mediator was Source: Peacock and Hansen, 2000. used to resolve differences in opinion with respect to the development of the community boundaries. Within the Shelburne geographic area (zone 4 in Figure 2), major differences in vessel performance, attitude and objectives existed. Shelburne was also the area with the most historical landings. This area required further partitioning and the “like-minded” application provided for an effective division between the two groups. The result was one Shelburne group of high- line operators and a second group of relatively lower-performing fishers. All fishers were assigned to a community on the basis of the port of registry as of 31 December 1996. Initial allocations (next section) to communities required a past reference point to determine community composition and associated allocations.