What we heard report: Fisheries and Oceans Canada's draft strategic plan for implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management

Overview

Fisheries resource availability in aquatic ecosystems is becoming increasingly uncertain as formerly healthy ecosystems become less resilient, particularly with respect to the impacts associated with climate change. Canada's aquatic ecosystems have undergone, or are undergoing, substantial changes in the abundance and diversity of fish stocks. In addition, Canada's waters and extensive coastlines are particularly sensitive to climate change impacts in northern latitudes, where rates of change are predicted to be highest. An ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) will become increasingly important as a way to help incorporate ecosystem information (e.g. climatic, oceanographic, habitat, predator-prey relationships) into stock assessment advice and fisheries decision-making, to support sustainable, stable, prosperous fisheries.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO, the department) developed the draft Strategic Plan for Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (the Strategic Plan) following feedback received during the fall of 2023 engagements on the department's Advancing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management: A Discussion Document. The draft Strategic Plan provides DFO's foundational guidance to inform the systematic implementation of an EAFM for Canada's federally managed fish stocks and fisheries located in its freshwater, coastal, and marine waters. The draft Strategic Plan provides a consistent departmental framework for how DFO can implement EAFM by systematically incorporating ecosystem information^{Footnote 1} into the current fisheries management process while retaining the single-stock management approach.

DFO undertook extensive engagements with Indigenous peoples, co-management partners, fish harvesters, industry, governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and others across Canada (herein referred to as Indigenous partners, harvesters and stakeholders) and sought views and written feedback on the draft Strategic Plan to help the department finalize the plan to move towards an incremental, systematic implementation of EAFM. The intent of the virtual engagements was to solicit feedback from Indigenous partners, harvesters, and stakeholders about a framework to implement EAFM for federally managed fish stocks and fisheries in Canada. To help initiate and facilitate discussion and generate feedback, a structured presentation to meeting participants included several questions (not intended to be exhaustive or represent the full range of points that could be raised), listed below:

1. Does the draft Strategic Plan provide sufficient information about how DFO will incorporate ecosystem variables in the management of fisheries?
2. Which stocks or fisheries do you see as priorities for incorporating ecosystem variables? Why?
3. How would Indigenous knowledge holders prefer to work with DFO on the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in EAFM?
4. What potential benefits do you think could emerge by applying this Strategic Plan for advancing EAFM? For your fishery, your community, the environment?
5. What potential concerns or limitations do you see with the Strategic Plan? Or with advancing EAFM?

From April 23 through May 22, 2024, DFO held seven virtual engagement sessions dedicated to its draft Strategic Plan for Implementing EAFM with participants from the Pacific, Arctic, Quebec, Gulf, Maritimes, and Newfoundland and Labrador regions, as well as a national session for invited participants from any region. Additionally, the department engaged virtually at the request of Indigenous partners, harvesters, and stakeholders across the country another three times in April, June and July 2024. In total, over 750 people representing interests across all regions were invited to participate in the engagement sessions. The draft Strategic Plan was circulated in advance of the sessions, and engagements allowed time for participants to ask questions and provide comments. Participants were encouraged to provide further comments in written form, via email following each session.

Overall, approximately 200 Indigenous partners, harvesters, and stakeholders participated in the engagement sessions. The department received verbal feedback from 57 individuals and/or organizations during the engagement sessions and received 18 written responses representing views of Indigenous partners, harvesters, and stakeholders. Overall, 179 distinct comments were identified throughout the analysis of the engagement and feedback process. In compiling and analyzing the results, duplicate comments from the same individual or organization who attended more than one engagement session and/or provided written responses were only counted once. Of the feedback received:

• Indigenous peoples and Indigenous organizations accounted for 53 %
• fishing associations and industry accounted for 25 %
• NGOs accounted for 16 %
• provinces and territories accounted for 5 %
• others accounted for 2 %

This report is a reflection of what we heard throughout the engagements and from the written responses. It is not a departmental response to the views and comments received. The feedback shared with the department has been taken into consideration while work to finalize the draft Strategic Plan continues.

Key themes

Most comments heard during the virtual engagements and from the written responses fell under five overarching, recurrent themes (Figure 1): (i) implementation process, (ii) operational challenges and considerations, (iii) fisheries or stocks to prioritize under EAFM, (iv) Indigenous perspectives, and (v) the scope of management approach. While the Department provided some targeted questions to initiate and facilitate discussion, as noted earlier, few respondents answered these questions directly.

Theme 1: Implementation process

Seventy-five percent (75 %) of respondents shared views and concerns related to the implementation process, including criteria and components for implementation, speed of implementation, engagement and consultation processes, management and decision-making, variability and consistency, and how, or if, EAFM is implemented abroad.

Implementation criteria, process, and components

Respondents commented on components that should be included in the Strategic Plan and/or criteria for implementing EAFM. Several respondents said that “ecosystem assessments” should be a component of the Strategic Plan as these were determined to be key for implementing EAFM according to the Pepin et al. (2023) case study report previously completed by DFO. Respondents also requested clarification on how existing policies and tools would interact to implement EAFM, and how EAFM will fit into existing commitments (e.g., Marine Protected Areas) and initiatives (e.g., Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative). Several respondents said the Strategic Plan was missing detailed elements such as goals, targets, and associated timelines. Some comments suggested the Strategic Plan should include baseline information on what is needed to implement EAFM and details on how the department will hold itself accountable for implementation (i.e., performance metrics) to determine that EAFM has been successfully implemented, enabling the department to proceed with ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM), the next step along the continuum of ecosystem approaches. Respondents also wished to see more detailed information on how DFO will integrate ecosystem variables into fisheries management and suggested DFO should provide implementation guidance for fishery managers, Indigenous peoples, co-management partners, and fish harvesters. More details in the Strategic Plan on the roles and responsibilities for each sector in the department were also requested.

Speed of implementation

Other comments related to the speed at which DFO should move to implement EAFM. While some of these comments supported the department's proposed incremental implementation of EAFM and suggested it should be done cautiously, most of them suggested DFO should move forward with greater urgency to implement EAFM, with some saying the transition to EBFM should be faster given the effects of climate change and the dire state of fisheries resources, with Pacific salmon explicitly identified as an example.

Engagement and consultation processes

The department also heard concerns related to planned departmental engagements and consultations on EAFM. While respondents generally appreciated the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Strategic Plan, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents wanted further opportunities to be engaged and/or consulted on EAFM as DFO proceeds with implementation. There was some concern that there would not be enough time during stock assessment meetings to discuss the incorporation of ecosystem variables thoroughly. It was recommended DFO hold workshops or face-to-face meetings to discuss EAFM implementation, and that DFO seek input from Indigenous partners, harvesters, and stakeholders on guidance and tools for EAFM implementation.

Indigenous respondents requested that any future engagements on EAFM and consultations on Indigenous knowledge should be in smaller groups to facilitate discussions. They also requested these engagements and consultations should be done separately and in-person for more meaningful dialogue. Some Indigenous respondents expressed the desire to have direct input throughout the EAFM process.

Management and decision-making

Respondents shared concerns related to DFO's decision-making processes when implementing EAFM. Participants said they would like to see more transparency on how Indigenous knowledge, data and information, or feedback shared with the department is incorporated into management recommendations and how it influences decision-making. Some respondents commented that EAFM implementation would be unsuccessful unless there was a system in place to ensure decision-makers respect the ecosystem information. A few others wondered if the management framework for their respective fisheries would be impacted by EAFM implementation.

Variability and consistency

Respondents shared views that a consistent approach was needed when implementing EAFM and that regional variability must also be considered. Respondents said there should be consistency in science reporting and deliverables, approaches in levels of consultation, and consideration of ecosystem information. Participants recommended having regional-specific implementation plans and minimum standards for consistent EAFM implementation. Respondents noted the importance for DFO to ensure Canada's domestic and international processes on EAFM are consistent and that a one-size-fits-all approach for Canada would not be successful.

EAFM abroad

Respondents had questions regarding the use of EAFM by other countries and Canada's international commitments. Participants highlighted the implications for EAFM through Canada's commitment under the Global Biodiversity Framework. Other participants asked if the department completed an analysis to determine what countries have used EAFM and which ones are furthest in advancing implementation.

Theme 2: Operational challenges and considerations

Sixty-seven percent of respondents (67 %) identified operational challenges for the department to implement EAFM, including the department's funding, resources, and capacity to implement EAFM, the need to collect more data, the need for increased collaboration, and the possible additional uncertainty and restrictive management measures resulting from EAFM implementation.

Funding, resources, and capacity

The department heard concerns related to available funding, resources, and capacity for the department to successfully implement EAFM. Respondents questioned how the department planned to carry out the work required for EAFM with existing funds and agreed that significant investments would be required. There were concerns that without significant funding for the EAFM initiative, resources could potentially be diverted from core fisheries science to complete EAFM work. Respondents were of the view that DFO cannot currently fill existing gaps and complete core stock assessment work, and further cautioned that existing resources and staff should not be reallocated to EAFM. Many respondents expressed concerns about the lack of resources for data collection in the Arctic and worried the burden would fall to northern communities that do not have capacity for such an endeavour. Several respondents noted that regional DFO staff workloads are already too heavy, limiting the work that can currently be accomplished , and were concerned that additional work from EAFM would lead to burnout and high staff turnover, which strains relationships. Other comments included the substantial technical and analytical expertise DFO will require to implement EAFM, and the need to consider the financial and resource costs for progressing along the continuum of ecosystem approaches.

Need for data

Respondents shared their concerns about meaningful EAFM implementation without significant data collection to fill current ecosystem variable data gaps. Respondents suggested several examples of data that should be collected by DFO to advance EAFM, including further data on natural mortality, development of limit reference points for more stocks, and removal rates particularly in recreational fisheries. One respondent noted that the department should have baseline ecosystem information before new projects (e.g., mineral exploration) go forward. A few respondents noted the urgent need for more data collection in the Arctic as it is largely data-deficient and is experiencing stronger climate change impacts. Some respondents stressed the need for more timely data collection and analyses so that fisheries management decisions can be based on relevant information. They further questioned whether EAFM implementation would change how data collection is carried out by the department. Another respondent wondered how the department would include ecosystem variables for stocks where assessments are not currently undertaken (e.g., for non-commercial stocks).

Collaboration

Respondents from Indigenous organizations, industry, and NGOs agreed that the department will need stronger collaboration with external partners to collect the data required for EAFM implementation. They also noted that in some instances they have already collected some data that could be used by the department. Several respondents said they want to collaborate with the department on data collection and processing but noted that the data-sharing process should be clear, timely, and inclusive of various methodologies. A few respondents commented that the Strategic Plan does not acknowledge fish harvester knowledge with regards to data collection. Other comments related to collaboration included the need for Canada to work with provinces and territories, the United States, and international partners on shared fish stocks.

Possible additional uncertainty and restrictive management measures

Some respondents were of the view that including ecosystem variables may increase the uncertainty of stock assessment advice and result in more precautionary fisheries management decision-making. They were concerned that potentially restrictive management measures resulting from EAFM implementation would lead to economic losses. The respondents recommended that the department only implement EAFM in cases where it is shown to improve science advice and management measures.

Theme 3: Fisheries or stock to prioritize under EAFM

Forty-two percent (42 %) of the respondents shared suggestions on specific stocks that should be prioritized under EAFM or suggested factors for DFO to consider when prioritizing fisheries or stocks. Suggestions on which factors to consider when prioritizing fisheries or stocks for EAFM varied widely. Recommendations ranged from prioritizing conservation over economics; Indigenous food, social, and ceremonial needs; socio-economic considerations; with some comments suggesting the Department focus on data-rich fisheries while others suggested focusing on data-poor fisheries. Respondents also recommended prioritizing stocks of ecological or cultural importance, those interacting with vulnerable species, or those that are sensitive to climate change, invasive species, or at risk of becoming threatened. More specifically, respondents listed the following as priorities: Pacific salmon, forage fish, sensitive by-catch species, Atlantic salmon, striped bass, lobster, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, Snow crab, Northern shrimp, Sea scallop, Redfish, Atlantic halibut, and Atlantic cod. A few respondents suggested advancing ecosystem management pilot projects.

Theme 4: Indigenous perspectives

Thirty-nine percent (39 %) of the respondents shared their views regarding Treaty Rights and Indigenous knowledge^{Footnote 2}. While comments received from Indigenous groups are reflected throughout each of the themes in this report, this section focuses specifically on matters of importance to Indigenous partners not covered under the other themes.

Treaty Rights

The department heard comments related to Treaty Rights, legislation and regulations, and agreements related to Indigenous peoples. Several respondents noted that EAFM should respect Treaty Rights, the Crown's d uty to consult, other obligations and agreements, and reconciliation processes as a priority. Respondents further noted that the Strategic Plan should explain how these will be respected and carried out throughout the implementation of EAFM. A few respondents also noted that EAFM should include co-management with Indigenous partners.

Indigenous knowledge

Other comments received related explicitly to the use of Indigenous knowledge in EAFM. Respondents commented that there is a need for clear mechanisms on how Indigenous knowledge will be incorporated in EAFM, including how Indigenous peoples can participate in sharing knowledge with DFO, how Indigenous knowledge will be used and integrated with departmental science, the weight it will be given for providing advice to decision-makers, and the timelines to include Indigenous knowledge in EAFM. Comments also noted the need for meaningful consultations to gather Indigenous knowledge, which could require funding for communities to be engaged throughout the entire process and understand the needs of the department. A few respondents noted that the Strategic Plan places emphasis on the scientific peer review process and appears to classify Indigenous knowledge as a consideration. They recommended that Indigenous knowledge be integrated with scientific advice, and that the definition of EAFM be inclusive of Indigenous knowledge. A few respondents also recommended that the department create separate Indigenous-led consulting bodies or authorities to engage with knowledge holders to gather Indigenous knowledge, which would include Indigenous-led research and training programs.

Theme 5: Scope of management approach (EAFM vs EBFM)

Twenty-six percent (26 %) of respondents shared views relating to the scope of the management approach proposed in the Strategic Plan (i.e., EAFM). The Strategic Plan presented DFO's continuum of ecosystem approaches, with the current single-stock fisheries management approach being the base of the continuum, followed by EAFM (which uses a single-stock approach and ecosystem information), then EBFM (which uses a multi-stock approach and ecosystem information), and finally ecosystem based management (which manages multiple sectors, not only fisheries). Several respondents were concerned that one of the objectives of the Strategic Plan was for the department to move towards EBFM. They noted that the similarity of the terms was confusing and they were concerned that some participants, departmental senior managers, and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans who support EBFM or an “ecosystem approach” are not clear on the important distinctions between the different levels of the continuum of ecosystem approaches. They were also concerned that initial support shown for EAFM through the first round of engagements on EAFM in the fall of 2023 was being misattributed as support for EBFM. They clarified that their support for EAFM does not mean they support the department moving towards EBFM implementation. While they supported EAFM, they strongly cautioned against moving to EBFM until EAFM is fully understood, and noted that broad consultations would be required if the Department moved to a multi-stock approach to fisheries management.

While some respondents shared that they were supportive of EAFM as a first step, several noted that EAFM does not go far enough to ensure the sustainability of stocks and fisheries given the urgency they are facing due to climate change and other factors. Respondents urged the department to move faster along the continuum of ecosystem approaches. They were of the view that retaining a single-stock approach was not appropriate in the long term and would not be a successful method to manage fisheries. They highlighted the importance of considering multiple stocks to ensure sustainable management and to capture ecosystem effects.

Conclusion and next steps

Overall, the department heard a broad range of views on the draft Strategic Plan and how to proceed with EAFM implementation. The main themes heard during the virtual engagements and throughout the written responses included:

1. implementation process
2. operational challenges and considerations
3. fisheries or stocks to prioritize under EAFM
4. Indigenous perspectives
5. the scope of management approach

Overall, there was general support for advancing with EAFM implementation; however, Indigenous peoples, co-management partners, fish harvesters, industry, governments, and NGOs had varied perspectives on the prioritization of stocks and fisheries for implementation and the scope of management.

EAFM is a critical next step in DFO's ongoing efforts to modernize the management of fisheries resources, and the Strategic Plan will provide the Department the necessary foundational guidance to inform the implementation of EAFM. To date, EAFM has been implemented incrementally in some DFO regions and fisheries where there has been targeted work and available information, but not yet comprehensively or systematically across all the fish stocks and fisheries that DFO manages. A more systematic implementation of EAFM will strengthen DFO's fisheries management framework by explicitly considering ecosystem information in the provision of science advice and management recommendations to better account for multiple pressures such as those induced by climate change and biodiversity loss.

The department is grateful for the extensive and comprehensive feedback received through the engagement sessions and has taken these views and comments into consideration while work to finalize the draft Strategic Plan for implementing EAFM continues.

References

Pepin, P., Koen-Alonso, M., Boudreau, S.A., Cogliati, K.M., den Heyer, C.E., Edwards, A.M., Hedges, K.J., and Plourde, S. 2023. Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Working Group: case study synthesis and lessons learned. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3553: v + 67p