Latest / How To Protect The Ocean / Rebuilding Fisheries in our Oceans: The Challenges and Progress in Canadian Fisheries Management

Transcript

Rebuilding Fisheries in our Oceans: The Challenges and Progress in Canadian Fisheries Management · How To Protect The Ocean

0:00
Can you just talk a little bit about what type of work goes
0:03
in the audits and why Oceanic Canada has taken it upon itself to
0:07
We first started doing these audits in 2017, right
0:11
when we were getting started up in Canada, because the
0:15
answer to how our fisheries were doing was very unclear. And
0:19
there wasn't really this kind of collated data set available.
0:24
So we set out to do it ourselves. Last year we had less than
0:27
a third of Canadian fish populations assessed as healthy,
0:31
and this year we have just over a third of
0:35
fish populations assessed as healthy, so 35% in
0:39
that zone. Second biggest category would be
0:43
the level of stocks that are in this uncertain status,
0:47
so they don't have defined benchmarks to
0:51
assess whether they are being fished at sustainable
0:55
levels, and that's at
0:59
34.5%, so very close to the same amount as healthy.
1:03
And then the rest are in depleted categories, so
1:07
13% in the cautious zone, and
1:18
Hey, everybody, welcome back to another exciting episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast. I'm
1:22
your host, Andrew Lewin, and this is the podcast where you find out what's happening with the ocean,
1:25
how you can speak up for the ocean and what you can do to live for a better ocean by
1:29
taking action. And this is the place if you haven't been here
1:32
before, this is the place where you find out what's happening with ocean
1:36
news, with how you can campaign for oceans and speak up
1:39
for oceans and what you can do to take action on making
1:42
the oceans better in your backyard. as well as
1:46
in your oceans, in your country, internationally, wherever you
1:49
want. Go to speakupforblue.com to find out more information, more podcasts, more
1:53
YouTube videos. You can find it there. You can also get
1:56
all that information going to your inbox or coming into your inbox by
2:00
going to speakupforblue.com forward slash newsletter Monday
2:03
to Friday at 8 a.m. Eastern. You will get an email to your inbox to
2:07
be able to find out everything you need to know about the oceans. Today
2:11
we're going to be focusing on the 8th annual Fisheries Audit from Oceana
2:14
Canada. Fisheries Scientist Rebecca Skynes is here to talk
2:18
about the audit, go through some of the great points that
2:21
she sees and what she likes about this year's audit and the
2:25
movement that's been made since last year. And also some of the low points
2:29
that we've seen are some bad decisions regarding capelin and
2:32
cod stocks and increasing those
2:36
quotas and allowing offshore to increase those quota and
2:39
fisheries to continue to happen. We're going
2:42
to talk a little bit about a lawsuit that's happening because of that decision and
2:46
why that decision was happening. It sounds like it's more at the political level than
2:49
it is at the public service level. And so we're going to talk a lot
2:53
about that and sort of the different levels and why finding
2:56
out more and getting more information on the uncertain category for
3:00
fishery stocks is really helpful, even if you
3:03
get a critical designation to
3:07
that fisheries. It's always nice to be able to rebuild those, to be
3:10
able to find out what we need to rebuild them, because the faster we rebuild them, the
3:14
faster they get better, is really what it comes down to. So let's
3:18
move forward with the interview with Rebecca
3:21
Skynes from Oceana Canada Fisheries Scientist. She's going to talk about
3:25
this eighth annual fisheries audit from Oceana Canada. Enjoy
3:28
the interview and I will talk to you after. Hey Rebecca, welcome back
3:32
to the How to Protect the Ocean podcast. Are you ready to
3:42
I love it. I love it. It's great to have you back here today. We're going to
3:45
get into some of the overall statistics
3:50
that you guys take, the indicators that you take from Oceanic Canada.
3:54
to discuss, you know, where are our fisheries, where's
3:58
the health of our fisheries here in Canada? It's been a wild
4:03
ride over the last three decades, let's just say, or even four or
4:06
five decades, with the collapse of cod in the 90s
4:09
and trying to rebuild stocks, and then I guess in the mid-2000s
4:13
we started to see a decrease in the amount
4:17
of data that was collected and just the amount of people that were, you know, that
4:20
were present in the government for stock assessment, you
4:24
know, collation and looking at data analysis and so forth.
4:28
And then Oceanic Canada has come through and has done this, these fishery audits,
4:32
these fish stocks audits for quite some time now. So
4:35
we're going to talk about this year's report is just released, I believe, end
4:44
There we go. Sorry. I've been seeing news on it and like a little update.
4:47
So I'm sorry. My apologies. So just a couple of days ago. So this is
4:51
great. So we're getting the word out just as it's released. And
4:54
I'll put a link so that people can download the report. It'll be
4:57
on Oceana Canada's website. But before we get into
5:00
all that fun stuff, and there's a lot of updates on the cod fishery as well,
5:05
let's just, can you just remind the audience of who you are and
5:09
Absolutely. And happy World Fisheries Day. Yes, indeed.
5:15
I'm happy to be here. I'm Rebecca Skynes. I'm a
5:18
fishery scientist with Oceana Canada and Oceana
5:22
Canada is a science based conservation organization. And we're
5:25
focused on tackling some of the ocean's biggest threats, looking
5:29
to strengthen national policies that rebuild abundance in
5:34
gotcha and and we had you on last year to talk about this
5:38
audit uh and so let's start from where we
5:41
left off just to kind of give people an update so last
5:45
year you know we had similar results to
5:48
this year but can you just kind of just let us know like in terms of
5:51
an overview of like healthy status of
5:54
certain uh stocks, critical status
5:58
of certain stocks, cautious level, and then the big one for me
6:01
was uncertainty. Can you just kind of give us an update of where we
6:07
Sure. So last year we had less than a third of
6:10
Canadian fish populations assessed as healthy. And
6:14
this year we have just over a third of
6:17
fish populations assessed as healthy. That's
6:22
35% in that zone. Second biggest category would be
6:25
the level of stocks that are in this uncertain status.
6:29
So they don't have defined benchmarks to
6:33
assess whether they are being fish at sustainable levels,
6:39
and that's at 34.5%, so very close
6:42
to the same amount as healthy. And
6:46
then the rest are in depleted categories, so
6:49
13% in the cautious zone and 17% in the critically depleted zone.
6:57
So anything in the critical zone is where
7:00
serious harm is occurring to that fish population
7:04
and really kind of impacting their ability
7:08
to reproduce and rebound. And that's a
7:12
level where there's a legal trigger to
7:16
create a rebuilding plan and get the
7:19
stock back on track and managed to
7:26
Gotcha. Let's give the people just a little bit of
7:30
knowledge on the audit itself. So you're
7:34
doing this audit because you want to make sure the government is following the
7:37
plans from the Fisheries Act to ensure that our stock, our fishery stocks
7:41
are managed properly. Can you just talk a
7:44
little bit about what type of work goes in the
7:47
audits and why Oceanic Canada has taken it upon itself to do these audits?
7:52
Yeah, we first started doing these audits in 2017, right
7:55
when we were getting started up in Canada, because the
8:00
answer to how our fisheries were doing was very unclear. And
8:04
there wasn't really this kind of collated data set available.
8:08
So we set out to do it ourselves and look through
8:12
all the publicly available government documents. We're looking at
8:15
stock assessments, management plans, science
8:19
reports, and bringing it all together in one
8:22
spreadsheet, identified indicators of
8:25
success across management, science,
8:30
you know, data and information, as well as monitoring
8:34
coverage and that's kind of
8:38
defined the indicators we've been tracking over the past eight years.
8:42
So every year I dive into the reports once
8:45
again, look at all of the newly published materials and
8:49
update those indicators and start that process in the spring.
8:52
And then all of that gets, you know, we
8:56
send it to back to the department to verify and offer
9:01
briefings to go over the data and make sure we're accurately reporting
9:04
everything. Yeah. And then we write this report. We
9:09
publish a nice, shiny public version and also
9:13
include all of the kind of technical appendices and the spreadsheet for
9:17
anybody to use. And we've seen a lot of people use
9:21
the data to come up with their
9:24
own research. And it's been really encouraging to
9:28
see both the use of that data and kind
9:31
of the recommendations that we've been putting forward finds
9:39
Does the government put out their own reports on each stock? Like
9:43
do they have their own technical? I know they have like a technical series. Do they do like
9:46
an annual report for all the
9:52
So that's something that they started doing after we
9:56
started doing this audit. They started putting out a survey
9:59
of fisheries. It's not as comprehensive as
10:02
our data set, but we definitely use that to
10:07
feed into ours. So they
10:11
look and they've been kind of adding stocks that they've been tracking. across
10:17
their reporting, but you can't really assess
10:21
the trends as well. And there isn't a report
10:25
to Parliament, which is something we'd really like to see the government having
10:29
a self-accountability to Parliament and
10:36
Yeah, that makes common sense, right? Having
10:39
that to go back to the government. Government can look at this, make their
10:43
assessment, and go back and try and improve the fisheries if they
10:47
need to. Do you think, and it
10:50
may not be directly, could be directly, do you think that the
10:54
Oceanic Canada's fisheries audit put on pressure
10:58
for the government to put out their own stock assessment reports
11:01
for each one? Do you think that Oceanic Canada had that direct
11:07
I think it was a contributing factor. I would like to
11:10
believe so. And, you know, we do get a lot. This
11:13
audit is well received and the recommendations are,
11:17
you know, we do meet with the department across every
11:21
region in Canada and in national headquarters in Ottawa to
11:24
review the findings and our recommendations. So
11:28
we have seen some of those recommendations taken up directly, including,
11:32
you know, more transparency, more accountability. more data
11:37
and reporting over the years. And even more
11:40
recently in last year, the Office of
11:43
the Auditor General put out a report directly
11:47
on the department's performance on fisheries monitoring, which
11:50
is something we've been kind of echoing through our audit as
11:54
well over the past eight years. So there's
11:57
been a lot more of this type of accountability on
12:01
the department. But really what we're
12:05
seeing now is we're on the right path, but
12:09
really the pace needs to really pick up in
12:16
Yeah, and I want to reiterate too, and we had you
12:19
on last year to talk about this as well, but Oceanic Canada has
12:23
a very good working relationship with the DFO scientists who
12:26
are doing this stuff. You guys are working together, you're getting the
12:29
data, but you also as an organization, puts
12:33
a little pressure to be like, hey, this is where we're at right now. This is where we could
12:36
be. Let's try and pick up, as you mentioned, pick
12:40
up the pace a little bit and let's start to get more of these critical
12:45
replenishment plans or rebuilding plans back faster.
12:49
Let's get the uncertain, let's get knowledge
12:53
on those, let's get assessments on those. and make sure that we
12:56
can get this data. So you kind of wear, as an organization, you
12:59
wear two hats in this regard. Is that a
13:05
Yeah, when I'm involved in reviewing stock assessments, I
13:09
have my scientist hat on and I come to the table without any biases
13:13
or hidden agenda. And then when we're driving
13:18
these recommendations forward. It's I'm putting on my advocacy, my
13:21
scientist advocacy hat. Yeah. And, you
13:25
know, really putting the pressure on and holding holding them
13:28
accountable to these commitments. And yes,
13:32
we've we've seen, you know, uptake in in both improvements
13:36
in the science, but and better policies, stronger
13:40
law over the past eight years. But
13:44
the gaps are still very apparent, especially the implementation
13:48
gap. So, you know, applying these laws, practicing
13:53
what what is being, you know, available
13:57
in the guidance and, you know, and the
14:02
Yeah, and before we dive deeper into this report, can
14:06
you just go over, and I think we did this last year too, but just
14:09
review when the Harper government was in power
14:13
before the Trudeau government. there was a big slashing of
14:17
fisheries and science personnel that
14:22
really kind of put a hindrance on knowing what stock
14:25
is. So we had a little bit of like a data gap or an amount of
14:29
resources. Can you just talk a little bit about that and how you've seen that
14:32
change since that time? I know you haven't been
14:35
with Oceana since when that happened, but just in terms of
14:39
from an organizational perspective, has it changed to
14:43
increase the amount of effort and prioritization of these stock
14:48
Yeah, I mean, that was before my time. I've been in this role
14:51
for three years now. So what I can say
14:55
is the department is well resourced to
14:58
do this work now. And ever
15:02
since I started this job, And
15:05
there has been significant investments in both science
15:10
and there's even $30 million this
15:14
year now allotted to increasing monitoring initiatives
15:19
and implementing the fish stock provisions in
15:22
the Fisheries Act. So there is dedicated staff
15:30
love it okay good to know that's that's good to know let's dive in to
15:33
the actual uh report you talked a little bit about some of the um
15:38
some of the overview of the report like the healthy the the
15:41
cautious critical and the uncertain so we know a little bit about about
15:44
those Let's kind of break it up into sort
15:48
of the good and not so good in the report. Let's
15:51
start off with the good. What did you see that was
15:55
like a positive change or some of
15:59
the things that you really like to see that are trending upwards in
16:06
Yeah, good is always a great place to start. Happy
16:11
to talk about the good news. Um, yeah, this
16:14
year, um, marked two years since
16:18
rebuilding plans were supposed to be developed for 12 critically
16:22
depleted stocks. Um, that was kind of mandated in,
16:26
in regulations. And we started to see
16:29
really high quality plans being produced, um,
16:33
that have a hopeful future for rebuilding stocks,
16:37
such as mackerel. The plan sets out
16:40
that Mackerel can be rebuilt within six to nine years.
16:45
Two cod stocks, Northern Gulf Cod, can
16:48
be rebuilt within eight years. Southern Newfoundland Cod,
16:52
rebuilt above critical levels within 14 years. We've
16:58
been really encouraged by these plans following the
17:02
new regulatory requirements. Unfortunately, the
17:06
plans were not published in time for me to include
17:09
that in, you know, tracking that in the indicators. But
17:14
we knew that the plans were approved. And
17:17
since assessing the indicators, we've seen the
17:21
Mackerel Plan and the Southern Newfoundland Cod plan be
17:25
published. So those are now going to be followed. Those stocks
17:29
are on the track to success. We've
17:32
also seen, you know, the draft plans for really depleted
17:37
ground fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence introduce
17:41
better measures for mitigating bycatch. and
17:46
a rebuilding plan for Haida Gwaii Pacific Herring on
17:50
the West Coast, being really a gold
17:54
standard on how to bring
17:58
forward both Indigenous knowledge systems and Western science through
18:02
collaboration with the Haida Nation on
18:05
this rebuilding plan. So that's been really
18:09
encouraging and we hope to see more of
18:12
these plans roll out in the immediate future. Another
18:19
improvement that we've seen this year is an increase in
18:22
climate change impacts being included in science
18:26
documents and advice documents. That
18:29
has increased steadily. over
18:33
the past years that we've been looking at it. However, there
18:37
is still a gap in how that's going to be reflected in management decisions.
18:42
So more information is being brought forward. But
18:46
the management decisions really need to be adaptive to
18:49
reflect kind of preparing for climate change impacts on some of these most
18:54
Can I just ask, before we go on, in terms of climate
18:58
change impacts, can you just tell the audience what types of
19:01
impacts would we see in Canada that
19:08
Absolutely. Climate change is affecting fisheries right
19:12
now. Fish are moving. Waters
19:16
are warming and changing. Some populations
19:20
aren't living as long or getting as big.
19:25
They might not be able to find prey in the same areas or
19:28
at the same times that they used to. So in terms
19:31
of managing and preparing the fisheries for these impacts, there
19:36
needs to be, you know, risk included
19:40
in decisions and management decisions like where
19:44
to fish, how long and what amount. So
19:48
all of that needs to be included in order to be best prepared
19:53
to adapt to these changes and to be
20:00
Gotcha. OK. Sorry to interrupt. Yeah, no worries. I
20:04
just wanted to make sure. Because sometimes we talk about climate change. We always mention
20:07
climate change, but then we don't dive into how
20:11
they're being affected by that. Because a lot of people think of corals
20:14
and bleaching and so forth, but we don't think of actual fish getting
20:19
sort of attacked or getting impeded by climate
20:26
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, some fish can can move and
20:29
they can can follow that the temperatures
20:34
that they're able to live within and others are, you know,
20:37
more sedentary, stuck, stuck in certain areas. And you see local
20:41
depletion happening. And similarly, there's coastal
20:45
communities in those areas. And and all of a sudden, they can't rely
20:48
on those local populations of fish for their
20:52
fisheries to continue. So It's really important to
20:55
prepare for these changes. We're seeing them now. And
21:00
let alone, you know, the kind of ocean changes we're seeing, bigger
21:04
storms, more kind of destruction of
21:07
local harbors and whatnot. So, yes,
21:12
it's really essential to kind of, at the very least,
21:17
be considering climate change impacts in the way that decisions
21:24
Yeah. And it's nice that they're, like you said, that they're in the rebuilding plan. So they're actually
21:28
taking them into consideration. And that will be,
21:31
I mean, that will be important because if you don't, then you could
21:37
Absolutely. But yeah, kind of one
21:40
more highlight, if you will, We
21:44
have seen an increase in setting some
21:47
benchmarks. So a slight decrease
21:51
in the amount of stocks that are in the critical zone. And
21:55
this is likely driven by the Fisheries
22:00
Act regulations, where if a stock is
22:03
critical, it gets a rebuilding plan. We
22:06
looked into these uncertain stocks a number of years
22:10
ago and assessed that there's very likely more
22:13
critical and cautious stocks hidden in that category. And
22:17
so assigning stock status, albeit a
22:25
Right, right. Now I'm looking at, uh, which
22:28
is great. I mean, these are great highlights to see. Unfortunately, I wish there were
22:31
more, but they're great highlights to see. Um, I'm looking at
22:35
part of the, the document here, uh, that was, that was published that I'll put, that
22:38
I'll link into the show notes. So it says, compared to 2023, there are now,
22:42
and it says, like, at reduced risk, 13 more at
22:45
reduced risk, uh, nine fewer in the cautious zone
22:49
at reduced, and five more critical and
22:52
then nine fewer. So can you just explain a little bit about that
22:57
Yeah, definitely. So that's looking from last year to this year. So
23:02
nine fewer in the uncertain category. That's kind of that shift that
23:05
I just mentioned. Those stocks got a status. It
23:09
could be a critical status, cautious or healthy. And
23:13
we've seen more kind of move into be a sign that they are
23:17
healthy. And for the
23:20
critical stocks that either came from uncertain
23:24
to critical or something slipped from cautious down
23:28
to critical. And so that's, you
23:32
know, a concerning increase that we've seen more
23:39
OK, OK. But I think
23:42
that's what is really interesting about the uncertain category,
23:46
is you could have more that are
23:50
healthy. And you could have some that are in the cautious and some that
23:53
are in the critical. But at least we're assigning something. and
23:57
even if they're in the critical and obviously that's not good you don't want
24:00
to see them in the critical but at least we know they're in the critical that triggers that
24:03
that rebuilding plan then we can start moving as
24:07
as a country like start managing it properly and and hopefully seeing
24:11
that increase or at least finding out why it's in the critical zone and and
24:14
be able to do that i think That's the great part. We have 34%, I
24:18
think it's 34.5% in the uncertain. There's a lot there that
24:21
could be healthy, we just don't know. But they could also
24:24
be critical and we need to know to make sure that we can get them back up
24:27
to where they were, which I think is really
24:31
cool to just have that. just to assign
24:35
more into categories, I think, is really great. So that's a
24:38
good, I like that, that's a good way forward. Now let's
24:42
start talking about some of the not-so-great things. I don't
24:45
want to say bad, but not-so-great things. But we looked at good, now we're
24:48
looking at bad. What were the things that you didn't like that were
24:54
Exactly. Yes, on the other side
24:58
of, you know, we saw a slight shift of stocks in that uncertain category. we
25:02
have not seen significant change, despite having
25:06
a policy since 2009 that
25:09
kind of sets forward how we're supposed to be putting
25:13
these stocks in stock status categories in order to manage them
25:17
better. And so that's really
25:20
concerning, as well as that increase in
25:24
critical stocks. And we
25:27
are now at the fifth year of having a Modernized Fisheries Act.
25:31
Um, that includes those regulations for setting
25:35
out rebuilding plans. Um, and currently only
25:40
30 out of nearly 200 fish stocks have this,
25:44
uh, fisheries act apply to them. Um, yeah,
25:48
the act was meant to be kind of rolled out,
25:52
um, so that these rebuilding plans would be able to be developed because
25:55
they have to be. developed within two years. So
26:00
that initial priority list of 30 stocks included
26:04
12 that were critically depleted. Two
26:08
years later, we've seen these really high quality rebuilding plans
26:12
slowly being rolled out, albeit a lot of them unpublished. But
26:17
the rest don't have any regulatory requirement applying
26:20
to them yet. Right now, we've seen a
26:24
second list of around 65 stocks, including
26:28
around six in the critical zone being proposed
26:32
to be added to the Fisheries Act. But that still leaves,
26:36
you know, almost half of the fish stocks still without without
26:41
a regulatory timeline. So there's been a really slow rollout
26:46
of what appears to be a very strong rebuilding
26:50
requirement in the Fisheries Act. And
26:54
that has ultimately led to huge delays in rebuilding these
26:57
stocks, huge costs to Canadians, both,
27:02
you know, the the governmental burden as well as
27:07
the cost of the fishing industry and not seeing these stocks rebuilt
27:11
to healthy and profitable levels. And
27:15
yeah, it's this has also led to a
27:18
lot of kind of inconsistent management decisions because we
27:22
see stocks that are included in the Fisheries Act getting
27:26
better decisions that are following the
27:29
law and others such as,
27:34
for example, forage fish like capelin we
27:37
see continued overfishing on. So we're
27:41
really calling on the government to pick up the pace and
27:46
include all these stocks in the Fisheries Act,
27:50
get these rebuilding plans in place and followed, as
27:55
well as all the other good qualities that we need in management,
27:58
which is for climate change, implementing the rights of indigenous
28:02
peoples, and improving fisheries
28:07
So we went from 30 out
28:10
of 200 stocks that were
28:14
actually, I guess they were part of the
28:19
Yeah, they're listed in the Fisheries Act for these
28:25
So if it's critical against the rebuilding plan, if it's
28:28
cautious or healthy, it has to be managed towards healthy.
28:33
And then this year, there were 60 more
28:36
that were added or that will be added or are being
28:41
So we haven't seen them in the regulations yet. And
28:49
And it's interesting because you, when you say that, you almost say
28:52
it like sarcastically because you've been working at this for, I
28:56
know, three years, but you've been working as a fishery scientist for longer. And I
28:59
think you and I can kind of pick up on a little bit of that. You're like, it's proposed. It
29:03
doesn't mean it's going to be there. Out of the 60, like,
29:07
do you think all of them? will be on there because that's sort of
29:10
what I'm hoping obviously hoping for but what I get when I hear oh
29:14
there's there's about 60 more that are being proposed but it sounds
29:17
like you know you're a little a little worried that not all of
29:20
them will get proposed. Could there's some that be removed from that or
29:28
Uh, it's pretty likely that all will be put forward because to get on
29:31
that initial list, they had to kind of go through a whole other
29:35
process. Um, but we engaged in
29:38
the consultation period for that list. Uh, we said, keep
29:42
all 65 stocks on this list, add more. There's
29:46
some other critical stocks that need to be included and they need the building plans to
29:49
be triggered. Um, so we were, we, we
29:53
put forward, you know, uh, kind of a subset of priorities to
29:57
be considered to be added in this regulation, as
30:01
well as, you know, get a third and final list
30:10
What's taking them so long? Like,
30:18
Yeah, I mean, the there is a lack of urgency on
30:22
kind of seeing the long-term vision for
30:25
what healthy fisheries could mean for Canada. Kind of
30:29
inconsistent decisions from fisheries
30:33
management. It appears we're still kind of
30:36
stuck in this short-term crisis management way
30:41
of thinking and applying the law and policies. And
30:46
yeah, really kind of a long, a lack of a long-term vision. And
30:51
what that comes down to is a lack of a plan And
30:54
that's where we see things like having a rebuilding plan, really
30:59
setting the bar higher than what we're doing right now. Status
31:03
quo is not sufficient. We could really be in a better place,
31:07
healthier oceans, more profitable fisheries, better
31:12
prepared against climate change, food
31:15
security for those who depend on it most. these
31:20
types of goals are not currently being reflected in
31:27
Yeah, it just seems like, I know government always works slow, but it seems
31:30
like the pace of this with the re, sort of the new Fisheries Act,
31:34
as you mentioned, the modernized Fisheries Act, had
31:37
a lot to say that was really great. I feel like it's a stronger Fisheries
31:41
Act after everything that went through in the past where it was
31:44
kind of stripped down and then rebuilt with
31:48
the new government that was in with the Trudeau government. That's what one of the reasons why
31:51
you know they got they got in was based on this. Now we
31:55
have all these mandates, we have all these proposed actions and then we
31:58
can put them together but the pace just takes so long and
32:01
I'm sure you echo my thoughts of just being so frustrated with
32:05
just the lack of movement on this. I
32:09
know a lot of DFO scientists and
32:12
they're fantastic scientists that would probably want to see the pace
32:15
picked up. Where is the level where, can
32:19
you say like where it slows down? Is it at the top?
32:23
I know we've had like, we were talking about this before, we recorded where
32:27
there's been six ministers in six years for Department
32:30
of Fisheries and Oceans. That can't be helping
32:34
with the pace. But where in that sort of chain of command does
32:41
Yeah, like you said, there's a lot of excellent scientists working on
32:45
the stock assessments and the science advice for managing these
32:48
stocks and setting up higher standards. And
32:53
where we're seeing some gaps is in the management. So
32:57
kind of that mechanism of getting science advice applied in
33:00
management decisions consistently and following policies
33:04
and laws. And then Of course, there's
33:07
always a slowdown in the bureaucracy when
33:11
it comes to developing and implementing regulations.
33:16
And the kind of other priorities come
33:20
into focus and shift kind of rebuilding to the side.
33:25
And so that's where kind of ministerial leadership comes
33:29
in. It's part of the minister's mandate This
33:33
is the same. It's a different minister, but it's the same mandate, actually,
33:37
to implement the Fisheries Act for all stocks. And
33:42
so, you know, all the
33:45
direction is there. What we need is stronger leadership
33:51
Yeah, because even like the people who are in charge of the policy and managing the
33:55
fisheries, not just the scientists and the stock assessment people, but everybody
33:58
else within that chain of command, I know they're gung-ho with
34:01
trying to get these plans implemented. They work really hard. And
34:06
as a citizen, not just taking out of my science and conservation sort
34:09
of role here, I would like to see it. you know, better managing, and
34:13
just like you mentioned, the pace to get these plans
34:16
in place and actually not just set, but
34:20
implemented to make sure that they go forward. I
34:24
know the scorecard and the audit kind
34:28
of tracks that, but how do
34:32
we as citizens keep
34:35
up to date on how the government is doing during
34:39
the year while you're collating all this information? How do we keep
34:43
up to date on what's happening and
34:47
some of the decisions that are happening so that we don't just, I mean,
34:50
obviously the audit's really handy, but so we can see it through and
34:57
Yeah, I mean, we as an organization participate
35:02
in the advisory committees for a number of these
35:06
more concerning stocks, as well as the
35:09
kind of science processes. It depends on,
35:13
you know, your interests and your skill sets. Of course, if you're kind of
35:16
more academically inclined, you can dive into the data and
35:21
share research, share this information. If you
35:25
kind of lie more in kind of the advocacy camp, we have
35:28
a whole bunch of actions that would really support this
35:31
work, including, you know, sharing your voice, your perspectives.
35:36
Um, writing, uh, we have petitions
35:40
that, uh, can be put forward letters to the minister, letters
35:44
to the fisheries management, um, when these decisions
35:48
are, are being kind of considered, um, which
35:52
for a lot of these stocks happens in the spring. Um, and, and
35:55
we try and keep the public engaged as much as we can. We, um,
36:00
publish all of our letters of recommendation for setting
36:03
harvest levels and, and, um, you
36:07
know, before the fisheries decisions are made. And
36:13
yeah, there's a lot that can be done beyond taking
36:19
And it is great. I think people should read this, not only just
36:22
as Canadians, but as people who are interested in how it
36:26
works, how everything works in terms of the different levels, like
36:29
the healthy, cautious, critical, uncertain, in terms of how climate change is
36:33
put into place. There's a lot of information that goes into this audit
36:36
that I feel is not only good for a
36:40
scientist, but also for the general public. And I feel like everybody
36:43
should be involved in this. It doesn't matter where you live across the country, this
36:47
is something that you should be about. Even if you're in the US, because a lot of times we
36:51
share fish stocks of some sort, because fish don't see borders and
36:54
so forth. So I think it's important to be able to see that. And we have
36:58
similar management practices
37:02
that we take care of. So I think that's always great. I know
37:06
we talked about how there's 200 fishery stocks, and we can't talk about
37:09
them all in this interview, obviously. But
37:13
I wanted to just revisit, you were on the podcast earlier
37:16
this year to talk about the meetings that
37:20
you attended for the cod fisheries and the capelin fisheries,
37:24
which are very closely related. Can
37:27
you just talk about the results of those
37:30
meetings, what happened, and our disappointment with
37:38
Sure. So, um, I guess maybe
37:41
two years back, well, cod have been kind of known to
37:45
be critically depleted, collapsed, um, you
37:48
know, since the nineties, um, similar timeframe for
37:52
the Capelan fishery. Um, and
37:56
that was a stock, the Capelan stock was in that uncertain
37:59
category. And, and we had done an assessment that, um,
38:03
suggested that it was in the critical zone. And sure enough,
38:07
a DFO assessed it as well as in the critical zone. More
38:12
recently, the assessment for Cod
38:18
kind of brought forward an ecosystem approach and used
38:23
a longer time series and the link
38:26
that Cod need Capelin to grow. and
38:31
to thrive. So it established kind of that predator-prey connection.
38:36
And surprisingly, what that led to was a lowering
38:40
of the limit reference point. And so while
38:44
there's still really low amount of cod and capelin in
38:47
the water, both were reassessed as
38:53
And not the critical. It was cautious, not critical. Not the critical zone.
38:56
So they went out. But they are projected to decline. And
39:00
that's mainly because there's not enough capelin for
39:04
COD to grow. So there's just enough
39:08
for COD to kind of be in that cautious zone. But
39:12
it's flatlined since 2016. And
39:16
it's projected to decline because capelin are also not doing
39:19
well. And what
39:23
that led to was really an interesting kind
39:27
of discussion on reopening the fishery, despite
39:32
there being the same amount of fish in the water. But
39:35
kind of that reassessment led a lot of folks from industry
39:40
and specifically the offshore industry in Newfoundland and
39:44
Labrador to advocate for a
39:47
reopening of the commercial fishery And
39:51
similarly, the inshore fishery requesting an
39:54
increase in the quota. And what
39:58
ultimately ended up happening was just that, the
40:03
commercial fishery for cod after 30 years of being closed, albeit
40:08
there still had been a fishery existing on that stock
40:11
for a number of years at pretty higher levels.
40:16
But the commercial fishery was reopened and
40:20
the quota was increased. This
40:25
has led to. You know, more
40:29
risk of and quicker kind of decline of
40:32
both of these stocks to the critical zone and
40:37
really seen as kind of premature and irresponsible management,
40:42
not following the intent of the Fisheries Act. overriding
40:46
science advice and not following the department's own
40:49
advice to maintain a closure and to
40:58
So sorry to interrupt, like when they're in the cautious zone, say
41:02
both for Kaplan and Cod, in the Fisheries Act,
41:05
does it say that they're not supposed to increase or open
41:09
up a fishery? Is it supposed to stay closed when they're in those two zones, the critical
41:14
There's no language directly like that, but it
41:17
is that they, that any decision must minimize the
41:21
risk of, of decline. And what we saw was
41:25
the decision took the highest risk of decline. Um,
41:31
and you know, really a short-term outlook of,
41:34
you know, reopening this fishery for one year and, and, you
41:38
know, I might be back in the critical zone again in two to three years.
41:42
Yeah. Triggering a rebuilding plan. What
41:45
was also really concerning was this decision was made without
41:49
any long term plan, any target, any goals. And
41:55
so that that kind of doubles down on the
41:59
kind of irresponsible nature of that decision and really
42:02
short sightedness of where we could be with COD, which
42:06
is at a rebuilt level could
42:09
provide 16 times more jobs, um,
42:14
and five times the economic revenue.
42:17
Um, and similarly with Cape
42:21
Lynn, um, this is a fishery that's nearly
42:25
15,000 tons a year, um, has never been, uh, closed
42:29
in recent years. And it's a critical forage
42:33
fish for not just cod, but for
42:37
whales, for seabirds, for other marine mammals, for
42:40
other large predatory fish that
42:44
have profitable fisheries. And
42:48
so really honing in on efforts on ensuring there's
42:51
enough capon for not just cod, but for the
42:58
it just uh... to me and it's just made no sense
43:02
for that decision as you mentioned you've already made the case for
43:05
it by far you know cautious zone for both of
43:09
them uh... doesn't say anything in the fisheries act out
43:12
to reopen uh... you know the the the measured
43:16
plans dot don't say anything to read to reopen them Was
43:20
this sort of all those cases like
43:23
that you could put forth to say let's keep it closed or
43:27
let's keep it at the levels that they're at, maybe even a case to
43:30
reduce some of it just to make sure because we know the levels of
43:33
growth are predicted to be stagnant, was this just
43:37
overridden by the minister or were there other people
43:41
within DFO, Fisheries and Oceans, talking about overriding
43:47
It appears to be a matter of ministerial discretion
43:51
because, you know, there's actually been a court case filed
43:55
now and we've started to see some of the documents that went
43:58
to the minister, most notably from the deputy
44:02
minister herself, recommending that the fishery remain
44:06
closed and that there be no increase in the quota for
44:10
a number of reasons. And the decision to
44:14
reopen it didn't come with very strong evidence.
44:18
We'll see what happens with the court case, which is
44:22
taking place early 2025. And similarly, the
44:25
decision will be revisited again in the spring. And
44:29
so what we really want to move forward on
44:33
better management for both of these stocks is
44:36
to get out of this crisis management, kind of reactive decision-making,
44:40
set forward a plan, have some clear goals to work towards,
44:45
ensure that it's ecosystem focused, that
44:48
we are restoring these links in the ecosystem so
44:52
that there's enough healthy capelin, enough cod getting
44:56
to healthy levels so that there can be long-term sustainable
45:03
Yeah, I mean, I'm glad there's a court case brought forward. I'm
45:06
sure Oceania Canada is following it. Who brought forward the court case?
45:10
Was it a collaboration of
45:16
No, there's yet another issue that the
45:19
inshore fisheries union sees, which is that they had
45:30
a commitment to the first one hundred and fifteen thousand
45:34
tons of the fishery. So by reopening it
45:38
and allowing offshore and foreign access
45:43
to the cod stock, that that kind of overrides that
45:47
commitment so that they brought forward the court
45:50
case. But of course, you know, the decision itself will
45:58
frustrating is it for you and your colleagues to
46:04
see a modernized fisheries act be
46:07
put forward, everything that sounds great in the act, having
46:11
rebuilding plans putting
46:16
those forward, seeing things in the cautious, like having those levels and
46:20
management acts based on that, and then having one or two
46:23
people override all of those and just say, no, no, you know what?
46:27
We're going to open it. How does that
46:30
make you feel as a scientist and as someone from Oceania Canada,
46:34
like working to make sure that we manage these
46:41
Yeah, I mean, it fuels me. I see the issue so blatantly. There
46:46
needs to be more accountability, more transparency in
46:50
the decision making, more inclusivity of, you
46:54
know, those who both hold rights and
46:57
who have a stake in the fishery. And and
47:00
so I'm I'm really kind of activated by seeing
47:04
bad decisions and knowing where we could be. So that's
47:09
that's what drives me and trying to solve these these
47:12
problems and and move forward.
47:16
We we have the tools. We have strong
47:19
laws. We have other great examples and
47:24
policies, great science to leverage. And
47:27
so it's about kind of and that's
47:31
why we focus on kind of the national scale change. But, you know, we
47:34
work regionally as well. Some regions are applying
47:38
these tools better than others. And so really
47:41
having a concerted and collaborative effort so
47:45
that we can see, you know, long
47:51
Yeah, absolutely. Let's shift a little bit. I mean, we're kind
47:54
of on the level of politics. In
47:59
terms of looking at who the minister is and so forth, looking
48:03
ahead over the next year, there's likely
48:07
to be a federal election to
48:10
come in. I think it's safe to say there's likely
48:14
to be a change in the party that's in
48:17
government. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it could happen. It
48:21
seems like all the polls are suggesting that the Conservatives could
48:25
win a majority. Liberals have
48:28
touted and professed that they are going to
48:32
be more environmentally friendly, they are going to address climate change, and they
48:35
have put policies forward. Whether they're implementing fast
48:38
enough, as we even discussed today, is something that
48:42
we need to discuss. Conservatives seem less
48:45
environmentally focused and more focused on taking away some
48:49
of those policies. The whole Axe the Tax campaign and
48:53
them sort of Like
48:57
just taking away all the carbon tax sort
49:01
of policies and so forth. How does
49:05
Oceanic Canada, an organization that's dedicated
49:10
to ensuring that we can fish forever and
49:14
properly and sustainably, How does
49:18
the organization prepare for any government
49:21
shift when there's a shift in power? I mean, we've had the Liberals in power for
49:24
the last nine years. You've been working on
49:27
this for the last three years. Has there been
49:31
discussions internally about how that
49:35
will be approached? Or is it just too early to tell? But if there
49:38
is a shift in government with what looks to
49:47
Yeah, that's an important question. And, you know, change is always
49:50
happening, especially at the political level. And
49:53
and so what we're really focused on is
49:58
trying to kind of depoliticize fisheries management by
50:02
moving forward with strong laws and regulations so that
50:06
there's rules that everyone can follow. And it's not up
50:09
to the whims of different leadership because
50:13
there is a lot of discretion that is afforded to both
50:17
the minister and those involved in
50:21
higher levels of politics. Um, so by
50:25
kind of working at, at this level, um, and.
50:30
Ensuring that there's the law is being applied and followed.
50:34
Um, that's something that everyone can get behind. Um, of
50:38
course we do have, we offer this, um,
50:42
the audit information to both, to all parties.
50:46
Um, and we did actually have some meetings, um, on,
50:49
on these topics and kind of share some of the priorities about rebuilding.
50:54
You know, we are about more fish, more fishing and how
50:57
to get there. And that
51:01
is something that I think a lot of people can get behind. And
51:05
especially as there's increasing threats
51:08
and impacts from things like climate change and other
51:13
issues that people care about. So that's kind of where where
51:16
we're at is trying to get as much done as we
51:20
can with this current government, as well as
51:23
looking forward to, you know, enforcing
51:29
Yeah, makes makes perfect sense. I like the whole depoliticizing fisheries
51:33
management because that's shouldn't matter what political parties in play want
51:37
people to fish. We want it to be sustainable. And it's just that's
51:42
So, yeah. And there shouldn't be, you know, fights
51:46
and conflicts over every decision every
51:50
single year. It's really unproductive and
51:53
it's not it's leading to great underperformance
51:58
in in fisheries, businesses, and the
52:02
kind of stability for coastal communities. So we
52:06
really want to look forward and look
52:10
to anybody who kind of shares that longer term vision.
52:14
Absolutely. Rebecca, this has been such
52:18
a pleasure to have you back on to be able to talk about this. I want to thank you
52:21
for you and your team to put in the work that you do to make
52:25
this wonderful document. I read it every year and I absolutely
52:28
love it. It really gives me perspective of where we are,
52:32
where we've been, and where we need to go, and it helps me
52:36
sort of decide the types of content that we're gonna be putting up here
52:39
on the How to Protect the Ocean podcast and on our YouTube channel.
52:43
So I really appreciate you spending the time with
52:46
us. I know you've probably done a lot of, you're probably doing a lot of
52:49
media right now to talk about this audit. So I
52:53
do appreciate you being here. And of course, you're welcome back anytime
52:56
to talk about more. about fisheries and hopefully we'll
53:00
be able to talk about more positive things that are happening over the
53:03
next year. So thank you again. I really appreciate it and looking forward to having you
53:07
Thank you. Yeah, I really appreciate being able to share this with your audience and
53:11
I hope it encourages and activates others as it
53:15
Nice, I love it. Thank you so much. Thank you, Rebecca, for
53:19
joining us today. And I know you're in a media blitz to talk
53:22
about the fisheries audit this year. It was just released. It
53:25
was two days. It had been released since when I talked to her and
53:29
recorded this interview. So I really appreciate you talking to
53:32
us and you spending the time with us to explain everything that goes into the audit
53:36
and some of the highlights and the low points of the
53:39
audit this year. It seems like we're making some strides. I think it would
53:42
be great if we made some strides a little faster. Just as Rebecca said,
53:46
I agree with her there. And it's interesting just to
53:50
hear what's been happening. And even though we have
53:53
a modernized fisheries act, even though we have plans from
53:57
that fishing act to help guide the management of
54:01
fisheries and oceans to manage those stocks better. And then they're not implemented
54:04
just by one person or a couple of people who just say, you know what, we're not
54:08
gonna do that. We're gonna increase the cod stocks and the capelin
54:12
stocks. in terms of the quota. And we're going to make
54:15
sure that people can fish now, even though that will probably go down to
54:18
the critical level in a couple of years because of that extra pressure of fishing.
54:23
It seems like we're repeating history over and over again. It could be
54:26
because we've had six DFO fisheries ministers in six years.
54:30
I don't know. But something needs to change. Something at that level needs
54:33
to change. Better management. We have to follow the actual plans
54:37
we put in place, because that's what laws are for. That's why we need to do it. And
54:40
it's interesting to see what will happen with this lawsuit by the Inshore Fisheries
54:44
Union. because they're affected because those are really comes down
54:47
to like the the local and and artisanal fishers that
54:50
will benefit and know that'll benefit the communities you talked about. Rebecca
54:54
talked about the benefit to local communities that fish and that
54:57
it could increase by like 16 times or And that's
55:01
a huge, that's a huge increase. And we need to make sure that that continues to
55:04
happen by making better management decisions, being a little bit more patient and
55:08
move faster in some of implementing those plans and
55:11
being a little bit more patient with how the stocks rebuild because we don't
55:15
know how things are gonna be affected from climate change and
55:18
other disturbances that we've seen in the past. And then we've seen this creeping up
55:21
and getting worse and worse and worse. So we have
55:25
to be very conservative from a scientific point of view
55:29
when it comes to that. So I love at the end when I asked her about like,
55:32
how do you prepare for a new government? What's gonna happen is depoliticize fisheries
55:36
management. Can you imagine if we depoliticize climate change and
55:40
fisheries management and ocean plastic and all that stuff? That
55:43
would be amazing. I don't know if that could happen, but I
55:47
love sort of the thought process in there and making
55:50
sure that, look, we're just looking out for local communities. We're looking out for the fishing community.
55:54
We're looking out for the people who benefit along with,
55:57
you know, of all the fish processing and the people around there
56:00
that benefit from that industry. That's what we're looking out for, plus we're protecting the
56:04
environment. So there's a lot of win-wins in that situation. And
56:07
so it becomes really, really important. It's complex. It's not easy. We
56:11
know that. It's difficult to go through. But I'm
56:14
really glad that there are people like Rebecca and her team to be able to help
56:18
out in Oceania Canada as well as other organizations to help out with
56:21
the fisheries. Really, really great interview. Love having Rebecca on.
56:24
Love to know what you think about fisheries in Canada and fisheries where
56:28
you're listening from. If you're not from Canada and you're from the US or you're from England
56:31
or you're from you know, Ireland, Scotland, you
56:35
know, Australia, India, Brazil, we're listened to all
56:38
over the world. I would love to hear your thoughts on what's happening in
56:42
your country. Do you have information from your country? I
56:45
know it's difficult to get information from here if it wasn't for this fisheries audit in
56:49
Canada, but I would love to hear how easy it is to get information. Do you even know
56:52
what's happening in your fisheries? Love to hear your thoughts. Hit
56:55
me up on on Instagram at how to protect the ocean or
56:58
you can leave a comment on our YouTube channel You can also leave a comment on
57:02
the video for Spotify, but I'd love to hear your
57:05
thoughts on this And we can just you know, I start
57:09
the conversation you continue it. So this is really great. So again, thank you to Rebecca
57:12
I want to thank you for listening the audience for listening to this episode and
57:16
all the other episodes you've listened to Thank you so much for joining us on today's episode
57:19
of the how to protect the ocean podcast I'm your host Angelou and have a great day.