Jennifer Silver, an associate professor at the University of Guelph, says that attention to socioeconomics needs to be considered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) alongside economic and biological impacts when rebuilding fish stocks.
“Some fisheries, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific, are known to be quite dominated by some corporate players where the access to the fisheries themselves are concentrated,” said Silver.
“If we’re investing in the science and policy of rebuilding, it would be nice to know that those fisheries that are being rebuilt are ones that are important not just to the larger corporate players, but also to Indigenous and other coastal communities on all three of our coasts.”
Silver believes that while the funds that are allocated to DFO for science and species monitoring are important, that money does come from taxpayers and that taxpayers should bear the benefit of stock rebuilding along with the cost of it.
“More funds are being allocated to DFO for science monitoring towards rebuilding, so that’s really important,” said Silver. “But if we’re investing in rebuilding the stocks then we’d like to think that investment, the returns on that investment are to Indigenous and non-Indigenous coastal communities with perhaps even with equal importance to some of the larger corporate players.”
In order to help these Indigenous and non-Indigenous coastal communities, Silver believes DFO needs a better grasp of who benefits from different fisheries.
While she says Atlantic Canada’s inshore fleet is ahead of the rest of Canada in fostering a diverse fleet of small and larger, more corporate-based enterprises, Canada needs to have a nationwide approach to studying benefactors of each sector.
“It’s about closing that loop. So, if we want to rebuild stocks, we need to ensure there’s a diverse set of economic beneficiaries from those rebuilt stocks.”
To level the playing field in marine industries and give the smaller players a piece of the multi-million-dollar fisheries pie, Silver says we need to look to other jurisdictions leading the way in this field. In Alaska, for example, the Local Fish Fund (LFF) has a loan program for a select number of fish harvesters to help them buy into their local fisheries with a 10 per cent down payment — a goal which may seem insurmountable for those without much in the way of start-up capital.
These loans are paid back to the LFF based on the prices these harvesters get for their catch.
“There are different ways economically and in terms of policy we can support people from coastal communities — even young people, new entrants, Indigenous and small businesses so they have the capital that they need to purchase or lease licenses and quota,” said Silver.
“One of the big constraints, of course, is that licenses and quota can be very expensive for some of these fisheries, in addition to, of course, needing to invest in a vessel that’s going to be able to do the work and the gear that’s going to do the work.”
Silver also points to New Zealand, where foreign ownership of quota-owning companies is strictly limited by government policy. She says that restricting foreign ownership of Canadian fishing enterprises would free more space for those that live in these coastal communities to have room to grow their own ventures.
While Silver has identified some problems with the socioeconomics of Canada’s fishing sector, she says that more conversations need to be had to iron out policies to help those most in need.
“It would probably be different between the Atlantic and the Pacific. It would have to be informed by conversation through some of the fishing organizations and communities themselves,” said Silver. “I think it would have to be one of those things that’s decided through consultation with the folks involved.”
