FSC MONITORING & CATCH REPORTING · of making better use of their human resources. A comprehensive...

1 | P a g e

ACTION PLAN

FSC MONITORING & CATCH REPORTING

Report on Proceedings For

FNFC

Prepared by: Marcel Shepert

04/15/13

P a g e | 2 BC FNFC 2013

FSC Monitoring & Catch Reporting – Report on Proceedings

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The information disclosed in this document

Is intended for the use and benefit of the BC First Nations Fisheries Council.

The writer and contributors of this publication refute all liabilities that may ensue.

Prepared by Marcel Shepert for the

BC First Nations Fisheries Council.

Phone (250)

Fax (250)

V0R 1K5


Wordle Document:

Wordle helps readers understand relationships between keywords, see the big picture, or drill down to individual comments. The program filters results to compare subgroups, visualise keyword relationships in more dynamic ways and share these insights for group analysis and decision making. The Wordle document was based on feedback to questions during four workshop sessions. It is a powerful tool to uncover insights and find meaning in participant feedback results.


Contents Wordle Document: .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Background ................................................................................................................................................................... 11

3. The Engagement Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Engagement Principles .................................................................................................................................................. 13

Strategic Primer Questions ........................................................................................................................................... 14

The Participants ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Break-out Summaries (Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Chilliwack, Williams Lake) ................................................................... 18

4 Feedback key themes ...................................................................................................................................................... 26

Vision ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26

Communication and Outreach .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Economic ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Capacity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28

Cultural / Regional ............................................................................................................................................................ 29

Transparency/Accountability ............................................................................................................................................ 29

Information Requirements and Data Standards ............................................................................................................... 30

Role of FNFC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31

5 Conflict Resolution ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

6. Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................ 31

Indicators .......................................................................................................................................................................... 31

7. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................... 33

Communications and Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 34


Economic ........................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Capacity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Cultural/Regional .............................................................................................................................................................. 36

Transparency/Accountability ............................................................................................................................................ 36

Information Requirements and Standards ....................................................................................................................... 38

Role of FNFC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38


Acronyms AFS-Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy DFO – Fisheries and Oceans Canada DMA – Data Management Advisor FN – First Nations FSC - Food, Social, Ceremonial PICFI – Pacific Integrated Commercial Fishing Initiative AAROM – Aboriginal Aquatic Resources and Oceans Management AFS – Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy FMCR – Framework on Monitoring and Catch Reporting CM – Catch Monitoring ISDF – Integrated Salmon Dialogue Forum M&C Panel – Monitoring and Compliance Panel CFE’s – Commercial Fishing Enterprises (developed under the PICFI program)

7 | P a g e

1. Executive Summary “There hasn’t been enough public engagement, the problem is with the process. For any of this to have meaning you have to be in the field and demonstrate the practical application.”- Mark Duiven, M&C Panel Member DFO has an internal commitment to improving data collection and management in the Pacific Region for all sectors and for all fisheries. Since 2000 – 2002 Fisheries and Oceans Canada has had a growing level of awareness regarding data collection and management. There have been several reports and discussion documents produced over the years which attempt to deal with this important issue. The most high profile work has come from the Monitoring and Compliance Panel (M&C Panel) of the Integrated Salmon Dialogue Forum (ISDF). At the ISDF, First Nations interests have been articulated through the presence of senior First Nations representatives with years of experience and knowledge. To date ISDF has made progress, but more needs to be done. For BC First Nations catch reporting, data collection, and analysis is a sensitive topic and has been one of the main causes for the lack of trust felt by many FN. A lack of trust and transparency about DFO purpose and objectives, sometimes inconsistent application of data, and perceived lack of equality between sectors, are primary reasons why First Nations are circumspect. The First Nations Fisheries Council in collaboration with DFO began working on an initiative to assess the state of Catch Monitoring in the Province to raise awareness of the importance of this work while looking for points of convergence within DFO’s current, Strategic Framework for Monitoring and Catch Reporting in Pacific Region. This work was seen as an opportunity for First Nations to begin developing a long-term strategy and collaborative approach to catch monitoring within DFO’s Framework for Monitoring and Catch Reporting (FMCR), released to the public March 2012. This project was about, how First Nations align themselves within the overall framework to better protect the FSC interest. FNFC understood that the work would most likely be done in several steps, some concurrent, and would include:

working with FNFC and the regions to establish a highly functioning relationship to deal with this issue in the short, medium, and long term;

facilitate dialogue amongst the different regions and the different fisheries to resolve just how First Nations want to align with DFO’s overall objective;

identify and build a work team dedicated to working on this project both now and into the future;

working with dedicated DFO regional staff, Carol Eros, and Lorne Collicott who are responsible for overall coordination of project deliverables including data management

working with DFO and First Nations to build foundations for taking next steps into the new fiscal year. Invitations were sent to Aboriginal Resource Management Agencies (ARMA’s), bands, and Tribal Councils in BC, to attend a one day technically focused, workshop to share catch monitoring practices within a regional context. The objective was to foster improved fisheries catch monitoring in all fisheries, and to provide First Nations input and garner support for the Framework for Monitoring and Catch Reporting (FMCR). The purpose of the workshop was to engage middle/upper managers and technicians in discussions about the short/long-term vision of FSC monitoring and catch reporting. This would improve communications and coordination between First Nations and DFO regarding DFO’s catch monitoring Framework, and work towards developing a longer term strategy to achieve improvements in FSC catch monitoring. There would also be raised awareness and appreciation among BC First Nations of DFO’s approaches, strategies and initiatives. Furthermore, the work has started to demonstrate how monitoring and catch reporting can be used as a tool to protect the Aboriginal interest.


The regional workshops were held in Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Chilliwack, and Williams Lake and produced the following

recommendations broken into seven themes. The recommendations are labeled under each theme.

Communications and Outreach:

1) DFO needs to do a better job of informing BC FN about the FMCR. To this end they should consider preparing a FAQ sheet specifying the program’s purpose and objectives, and how, if at all, it will affect FSC CM.

2) There is a need for increased interface / field trips and cultural exchanges between harvest sectors to demonstrate and educate about each fishery.

3) FN throughout the process were often pleasantly surprised to see and hear about neighbouring FN CM programs and services. Regional ARMA’s should increase interface with each other as well as with the public at large to educate and inform about breadth and depth of programs offered and seek points of collaboration to reduce redundancy.

4) Minimally, more consultation with the regions on the FMCR needs to happen, since many FN still do not know or understand fully the FMCR, even though it was made clear that it is final.

Economic:

1) An economic opportunity Think Tank comprised of ARMA’s should be convened to explore opportunities for FN to develop business models for securing government contracts under the Aboriginal Procurement Strategy.

2) DFO, once and for all, must seek meaningful ways to utilize the Government of Canada’s Aboriginal Procurement Strategy, in terms of its own objectives (e.g. cost cutting, reducing the public service) while improving the lives of Aboriginal people.

3) Presently there are about 26 CFE’s in the province with varying levels of capacity and resources. Utilizing resources and opportunities these organizations provide, DFO should consider a pilot project with an advanced level CFE to develop a FN training curriculum program.

4) Under the enhanced accountability framework, moving from left to right on the matrix, i.e. from basic to moderate to enhanced levels of monitoring, FN will need to be certified to monitor fisheries especially at the enhanced level. It is inappropriate for DFO to demand that FN CM be monitored at a given standard and then contract with third parties contractors to deliver FN CM training; this takes money out of the Aboriginal community. Also existing training curricula provided by current regimes are heavily focused on marine fisheries; nothing exists for inland EO fisheries. As per the National Dock Side Monitoring Program, FN need to develop their own company responsible for curriculum development and training that meets federal and FSC monitoring standards.

Capacity

1) For various reasons, some FN find themselves with unused / underutilized capacity and want to explore ways of making better use of their human resources. A comprehensive gap analysis for CM and test fishing should be conducted.

2) Identify opportunities and resources for capacity expansion, e.g. the Watchman and Guardian Programs. 3) Expand the use of TEK at all levels of management including catch monitoring and reporting.


Cultural/Regional

1) The issue of DFO’s Adjacency Policy and exactly how and where it is applied has created misunderstandings and in some cases real conflict. FN need to develop and document inter-tribal protocols relating to the sacred cultural practice of sharing fisheries resources and how if at all this may relate to DFO’s adjacency Policy. It is up to the ARMA’s to deal with this issue, not DFO.

2) In collaboration with the province and, to some extent the federal government, parties must begin exploring

ways to expand the role of FN catch monitors to include freshwater species, especially with many inland FN

beginning to explore freshwater aquaculture initiatives, and having to tackle issues like the Species at Risk

Act (SARA) and invasive species.

Transparency/Accountability

1) Plan on hosting a series of inter-sectorial workshops to share best practices and latest know-how on catch monitoring.

2) DFO collaborate with FN to expand their CM programs to monitor other fisheries. There are already examples of FN doing this in BC. Any expansion opportunities must be based on best science and information standards.

3) DFO must be clear about regional roles and responsibilities of its managers and their applications of the information given.

4) DFO must demonstrate commitment by moving these recommendations up the chain to senior management level.

Information Requirements and Standards

1) FSC-FN and DFO need to agree upon a definition of what FSC is in order to develop standards and criteria for collection, use, analysis, and storage of the information. Refer to Cohen.

2) The M&C panel report (Roadmap) has developed some generic criteria (conservation risk, fisheries operations, catch, ecosystem/habitat, statistical quality) for establishing monitoring levels(i.e. basic, moderate, enhanced monitoring). Based on these criteria, moving from left to right on the matrix will require additional resources. DFO and FN need to work collaboratively to agree upon which fisheries will require basic, moderate, and enhanced monitoring effort.

3) Develop regional Information sharing protocols that respect the local area FN and their objectives. 4) DFO wants all sectors to be able to integrate information into the new PacFish program, but many FN have

already spent considerable time and resources developing their own reporting and in some cases licensing systems. DFO must seek ways in which, to the best of their ability, to ensure that these systems integrate into the current FN systems (i.e. that it is not onerous on the FN). The ARMA’s should examine the effort put into current FN regimes and how they may be integrated into the PAcFish, if at all.


Role of FNFC

1) Begin utilizing the full suite of FNFC communications mechanisms and the FNFC Communications Coordinator to begin scheduling regular FN FMCR alignment updates on progress and next steps.

2) Plan to have a two day workshop to follow-up on the reports recommendations. 3) Plug into the regional ARMA’s since many of the organizations also have communications services and can

easily assist in planning/coordinating, and disseminating information. 4) With the AMAs form a working group to implement these recommendations group.


2. Background Since 2000 – 2002 the level of awareness of Fisheries and Oceans Canada regarding data collection and management has been growing. There have been several reports and discussion documents produced over the years which attempted to deal with this important issue. To date some progress has been made. DFO has secured an internal commitment to improving data collection and management, demonstrated by having two full-time staff positions dedicated to assisting in the process. Progress has been made with respect to the DFO catch database “PACFISH.” From the First Nations’ perspective there is a long and enduring history of mistrust. The FMCR process must respect the views of First Nations and operate in an open and transparent manner to build long-term sustainable relationships with BC FN. In many ways it is equally as important to manage expectations as it is to determine what is achievable and in what time frames. DFO has assured the First Nations leadership that this is a “collaborative” process which allows more than just an advisory level of input, and that the role of First Nations would move beyond “simple consultation.” In times of shrinking budgets/public service, more and more FN are sensing or even witnessing the inability of DFO to protect Aboriginal interests. From environmental / habitat monitoring, to stock assessment and catch monitoring, it is increasingly clear that FN need to expand their roles to protect their interests, but make no mistake about it simply off-loading” CM on FN without any new resources is untenable. To this end First Nations are encouraged to take the lead in charting their own course in collaboration with DFO. This is really about, how First Nations align themselves within the overall framework to protect their interests. The First Nations Fisheries Council in collaboration with DFO began working on an initiative to assess the state of Catch Monitoring in the Province; their purpose was to raise awareness of the importance of this work while looking for points of convergence within DFO’s current policy framework. This work was seen as an opportunity for First Nations to begin developing a long-term strategy and collaborative approach to catch monitoring within DFO’s Framework for Monitoring and Catch Reporting, released to the public March 2012. The First Nations Fisheries Council’s primary aim is the protection of rights and sustainable fisheries while developing FN capacity and enhanced economic performance. These activities will be done through a program of strategic outreach, effective communication, and strategic public engagement. The FNFC is also interested in supporting effective and efficient relationships and dialogue between First Nations and DFO through engagement, consultation and collaborative planning. The overall scope of this project is as follows:

Work with First Nations fisheries managers and catch monitoring staff to assess the strengths and weaknesses, threats, opportunities, and best practices in catch monitoring. Liaise with DFO regional staff to seek points of convergence, to identify challenges and to seek opportunities;

Where feasible or necessary, facilitate tier 1 & 2 dialogues to ensure consistency,

Raise BC FN awareness about DFO’s overall Framework on Monitoring and Catch Reporting,

Facilitate the sharing of technical and consultation processes relating to the implementation of the overall strategy;

Identify regional and provincial actions that support an overall approach for monitoring and reporting;

Provide ongoing communications material on catch monitoring to BC First Nations vis à vis the FNFC;

Develop strategies to improve understanding of actions and strategies with demonstrated efficiencies and effectiveness in various sectoral fisheries.

In order to get this project up and running and given the relative short time frame, (3 months) primer questions were developed and sent to the various Aboriginal Resource Management Agencies (ARMA’s). The questions were as follows:


1. Do you perceive any potential impacts or affects this may? 2. What is the scope of the geographic area which may be affected and how might this be communicated? 3. Are there any variations you are aware of and how will these affect the objective of this initiative? 4. Are there leaders / innovators in this field that you can identify in the interest of moving this initiative forward? 5. Are there sensitive areas or hot spots that you can identify? 6. What would this initiative need in order to make it credible? 7. Other than the three documents recommended in this initial phase what other information would you require

assisting you in the process? 8. Is there a potential for political controversy, if so please help me understand?


3. The Engagement Approach The primary goals of the engagements were to assist the BC First Nations Fisheries Council and Fisheries and Oceans Canada in developing a strategic report based on feedback from four BC wide workshops held in Chilliwack, Prince Rupert, Campbell River, and Williams Lake. Specifically, the report outlined both short and long-term strategies and approaches to foster, enable and improve FSC monitoring and catch reporting in BC First Nations fisheries. The BC FNFC wanted to maintain a neutral position to allow the workshops and subsequent report to be directed by First Nations participants and leaders. To this end, it was important to identify key decision makers and technicians grounded in the technical aspects of FSC monitoring and catch reporting, who had an interest in developing short and long-terms strategies. These individuals were invited to participate in a one day workshop designed to seek insights into challenges and opportunities, best practices and lessons learned.

The process consisted of four, by invitation-only engagements, focused on technical knowledge-sharing specific to FSC monitoring, and catch reporting. In order to reach a broad cross section of technicians and managers of Aboriginal Resource Management Agencies (ARMA’s), workshop locations were representative of the many current types of First Nations programs in BC. The purpose of the workshops was to get a snapshot of current FN catch monitoring activities in BC, to share regional CM perspectives, and provide recommendations and examples of programs and activities to improve FSC monitoring and catch reporting within the overall context of DFO’s FMCR Framework. Other supporting outputs included: Report on Proceedings with key outcomes and recommendations for moving forward; FNFC tab on website; and some short and long term strategies for improving FSC monitoring and catch reporting.

FNFC understood that the work would likely unfold in several steps, some concurrent, including:

working with FNFC and the regions to establish a highly functioning relationship to deal with this issue in the short, medium, and long term;

facilitate dialogue amongst the different regions and the different fisheries to resolve just how First Nations want to align with DFO’s overall objective;

identify and build a work team dedicated to working on this project both now and into the future;

working with dedicated DFO regional staff, Carol Eros, and Lorne Collicott who are responsible for overall coordination of project deliverables including data management

working with DFO and First Nations to build foundations for taking next steps into the new fiscal year.

In addition to producing outputs, the engagements were designed to produce outcomes (i.e. the non-physical results of the engagement that support and sustain overall results). Outcomes for the engagements include identification of the general objectives and purpose of the workshops and Identification of primary and secondary points of contact for regional FN organizations to the engagement, including broad and detailed understanding of the purpose and objectives of the work, broad support for the work, increased confidence and trust between and amongst the affected groups, and improved working relations between and amongst DFO and FN (relational capital).

As the independent facilitator for these workshops it was my understanding from the outset that this process would, to the extent possible and practical, follow a set of principles:

Engagement Principles

Commitment – FNFC and DFO were committed to the agreed-upon results of the engagement;

Culturally Respectful – following Aboriginal protocols, cultural knowledge sharing, and respectful;

Evaluation –a workshop evaluation plan was developed in order to evaluate the workshops;


Timing – activities organized with appropriate timeframes and deadlines so that participants were provided reasonable time to prepare and provide their input;

Inclusiveness –representatives that have a knowledge and interest in, are affected by, or can make a meaningful contribution to developing strategies should be included;

Accessibility / Accommodation - reasonable steps will be taken to determine how participants wish to be informed and to provide them with relevant, understandable information in support of the process;

Clarity – all participants need to have a clear understanding of the objectives and be able to understand the information and documentation they receive;

Accountability - roles and responsibilities for activities and plans will be clearly communicated;

Transparency – this plan will be documented in a way that is understandable by all participants and results disseminated in a timely manner;

Coordination - viewpoints, perspectives and comments on the plan, including the process and the product will be shared with all the parties in an appropriate and timely way.

Communications - there should be a communication plan developed to ensure sound communications between the participants and those with an interest in FSC monitoring and catch reporting success. Communication can include providing background information as a basis for discussions, information flowing back and forth, and dissemination of outputs to various audiences. Another part of the communication plan is content, in terms of “key messages.” Key messages are those messages that support the overall action plan; they are strategic, in the sense that they speak to the overall goals and objectives of the organization. Key messages are used in formal (emails, plans, etc.) and casual (telephone, face-to-face, etc.) communications and can include texts such as: The FNFC is committed to assisting in the development of a highly functioning FSC monitoring and catch reporting framework for the purposes of improving the relationships with other stakeholders, and will assist where requested in the implementation of the strategies outlined in the report. It is in the best interest of all the First Nations to work together.

Communication Instruments - communication instruments are publications and mechanisms that can be used to provide information and notices to participants. They include: strategic planning reports, planning instruments such as this one, draft agendas and covering notes, planning meeting correspondence, community newsletters, bulletins websites, Facebook, Twitter etc

Strategic Primer Questions

To begin with, it was important to give BC First Nations some time to think about FSC monitoring and catch reporting before the actual face-to-face engagements. A web-tab on the FNFC website was established as a repository for FMCR and M&C panel reports for homework before the engagement. Also, In order to achieve informed feedback, some strategic questions were asked which greatly improved the outcomes and outputs from the regionals:

Do you perceive any potential impacts or affects this work may have on your ability to access fish both now and in the future?

What is your vision for First Nations Catch Monitoring, from the collection, to the use and storage of the data? What is the scope of the geographic area which may be affected? How will any potential changes be communicated in your area of interest? Are there leaders / innovators in this field that you can identify in the interest of moving this initiative forward? Are there sensitive areas or hot spots that you can identify, please describe? What would this initiative need in order to make it credible? Other than the documents recommended above, what other information would you require? What needs to happen so that First Nations can collaborate with DFO in a meaningful way?


The Participants

From the outset the main values of the BC FNFC were inclusiveness, cultural respectfulness, and a focus on technical aspects only; the facilitated process was about sharing regional best practices, relationship building, and understanding the DFO catch monitoring framework and how BC First Nations want to align within the proposed framework. It is important to note that there are organizations within the Aboriginal community that do not share the same objectives of this framework and believe that any federal framework for FSC monitoring and catch reporting is an intrusion of section 35 (1) of the Canadian Constitution. These groups will not provide any information about their FSC catch numbers; for these groups, “need is not a number.” This substantive issue is beyond the scope of this exercise, other than to identify it as a challenge. There are a large number of Aboriginal Resources Management Agencies serving the needs of Aboriginal fisheries, and representing, to various degrees, the diverse Aboriginal communities within the province. The FNFC deliverables are designed to be regionally-based, allowing a diversity of interests to work collaboratively. FSC monitoring and catch reporting is also about Improved communications and coordination between First Nations and DFO related to DFO’s FMCR including the development of a longer term strategy to achieve improvements in FSC catch monitoring, raised awareness and appreciation among BC First Nations of DFO’s approaches, strategies and initiatives. It is hoped that this will foster improved fisheries catch monitoring in all fisheries, and opportunities to provide FN input and garner support for FMCR.


4. Methodology

To seek Aboriginal Resource Management Agency (ARMA) technical input into the FMCR, two target groups were identified. The first target group was the middle and upper managers from the natural resource management agencies. The second group was the First Nations members of the M&C Panel of the Integrated Salmon Dialogue Forum (ISDF). The second group was targeted for two reasons. The first was their collective knowledge of the M&C Panel work since 2007; the second, was their overall combined knowledge of BC First Nations fisheries in general.

Invitations were sent to Aboriginal Resource Management Agencies (ARMA’s), bands, and Tribal Councils in BC, to attend a one day technically focused, workshop to share catch monitoring practices within a regional context. The facilitator asked for up to four presentations (15 minute maximum) highlighting the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of current FSC catch monitoring programs. The overarching objective was to foster improved fisheries catch monitoring in all fisheries, and opportunities to provide First Nations input and garner support for the Framework for Monitoring and Catch Reporting (FMCR). The purpose of the workshop style was to engage middle/upper managers and technicians in discussions about the short/long-term vision of FSC monitoring and catch reporting. During the afternoon sessions the participants were broken into two or sometimes three sub-groups, depending on the availability of co-facilitators. Over three and half hours, participants circulated through two or three work stations, each with its own set of multi layered questions. After the participants answered the questions, they rotated to the next set of questions until everyone had a chance to provide input into all of the questions. The exercise helps reduce redundancy. This report documents what was heard during the workshops and is organized to follow the workshop discussions. Below is an overview of the workshop with reference to discussion summaries. Also after each round of discussion, participants were asked to provide feedback on any related topics.


Break-out Summaries (Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Chilliwack, Williams Lake)

Objectives:

establish a highly functioning relationship to deal with this issue in the short, medium, and long term

facilitate dialogue amongst the different regions and different fisheries to resolve how First Nations want to align with DFO’s overall objective

identify and build a team dedicated to working on this project both now and into the future

work with dedicated DFO regional staff responsible for overall coordination of project deliverables including data management

work with DFO and First Nations to build foundations for taking next steps into the new fiscal year

The goal of the workshops was to ensure that conversations were informed from multiple points of view and from multiple areas within BC. Therefore, any program(s) built would be based on the current technical expertise in the regions. Everyone who was invited as a presenter or commentator had to be prepared to be there as an active and engaged participant with knowledge of the subject matter. Every participant was chosen to be part of the dialogue. The first task was to get people thinking about both ‘what” the FMCR is trying to do and ‘how” it wants to get there. In the spirit of collaboration and working together, BC First Nations and DFO want to connect the dots between monitoring and compliance (as the “what”) and governance (as the “how”). The timing is good especially since the FNFC has been asking seeking clarity from regional fisheries organizations about how the FNFC can support activities moving forward. Currently the FNFC refers to this exercise as structural alignment. Over the course of the day, discussion would start in plenary and eventually end in smaller breakout groups. Central to the structure for the events would be a series of iterative cross cutting questions around key themes. The questions were shared widely in advance of the sessions. They would be a key tool in pulling together the outcomes at the end of the events.

Workshop Instructions: Two to three groups were formed depending on how many co-facilitators were there. Work stations were created with markers and flip charts. Groups were given approximately one hour to answer the questions. After each group completed a set of questions they rotated to the next station and subsequent questions.

Purpose: To get each group to render the long list of information into actions that could be built upon or could provide insights into opportunities and challenges in moving forward.

Assumptions: The participants actually want to align within DFO’s FMCR. The participants are committed to providing human and resource capital moving forward. The government is committed to a collaborative approach. Questions: After each regional session the facilitators would review the questions based on the feedback and alter the questions, for brevity only, before the next session; the content remained the same. Below are the key areas requiring

participant input.

1. Vision for First Nations Catch Monitoring, from collection to the use and storage of data 2. Perceived potential impacts or affects the FMCR may have on your ability to access fish 3. Scope of the geographic area which may be affected 4. Effective communication on potential changes 5. Current programs that demonstrate benefits of catch monitoring 6. Sensitive areas or hot sports identification and description 7. Current understanding of the FMCR and what would this initiative needs in order to make it credible? 8. Communications and information requirements 9. First Nations collaboration with DFO


10. Concerns and Barriers to providing catch monitoring information Below is a table with feedback to our questions arranged by theme. The key themes are based on minutes and actual flip chart notes. The themes were quite clear and easy to identify, they are as follows and are described in the table below: vision, capacity, communication and consultation, economic, transparency and accountability, information requirements and standards, management, structural alignment and cultural/regional.

VISION

Each sector must agree to a set of standards, and all sectors must follow the same rules

Easy to use system

Catch estimates generated by FN experts

FN have control over their own data and can use it how they want

Develop a FN strategy for catch monitoring and need enough time to allow tier 1 discussions at provincial level

FN need to understand the benefits

FN have provided data but not sure how it is being used

DFO needs to provide adequate resources

Protection of Aboriginal Rights

DFO and FN need to collaborate and bring FN into the decision making process

Getting nation/community buy-in

Vision must include statements about rebuilding on weak stocks

Area based and species based for all sectors, resources must stay within a given region

More outreach particularly for the youth

Linking CM to conservation

Increase authority for FN guardians

The inclusion of ATK in the overall process

Long-term commitment of resources to ensure programs are taken seriously and demonstrate a deeper level of commitment

Credibility will demonstrate benefits and communicates that back to member for both DFO and FN

This will take time and DFO must be willing to demonstrate it collaborating with FN

DFO and FN to develop an implementation plan

DFO should recognize TEK/LEK, find ways to incorporate run size estimates

To improve trust and transparency between

CAPACITY

Share best practices systems need to be customized to meet community needs

System needs to work for the nations and there needs capacity development, cost and technical support

Capacity is a barrier

Community isolation

DFO should provide ongoing, not one time technical support, i.e. how to use data, who can access it, and how it used in management

Reduced coverage based on reduced budgets

Training and capacity needed

Ecosystem monitoring will require a multi agency approach, i.e. parks Canada, EC, etc...

Begin to utilize FN catch monitors with existing capacity.

Continue building local capacity to gather and process data

Accepting limits of technology (on the sea limitations)

Need more funding to maintain current

capacity within the regions

FN guardians should charter patrol contract

and should be fully trained and armed like DFO

Technical backup required for new data system

Capacity to interpret and extrapolate data more than just meeting DFO objectives

DFO’s revolving personnel makes it difficult to build enduring relationships

Current government agenda reduce costs, gut public sector

Provincial government has no resources

reduced resources both human and capital

DFO cutbacks - the need for longer employment to maintain capacity

Capacity building for guardians, job shadowing.

Increased FN information / capacity exchange(tier 1 interface)

FN Guardians want more than Observe Record


FN and DFO, how will data be used?

Less micro managing

Trust-equality for all sectors i.e. recreational just as intensive consistent and at the same standard as the FN and commercial

Consistent approach

FN take on a more meaningful role in the catch monitoring programs within their regions

Privacy must be respected

Programs need to be expanded for a longer time frame

Should include other fresh water species

Community buy-in ECONOMIC

Creel, lots of barriers but good for information development and should be done by FN since it is cheaper

FN catch monitors – increased employment in communities

The work tends to be seasonal

Economic development for communities

Give FN managers more authority and power, more than Observe Record Report (ORR)

FN want to use fish to pay for monitoring programs

FN should break the monopoly of current CM programs, i.e. J.O. Thomas, and Marine Archipelago Group

Need resources to be successful

DFO can utilize several agreements to move

toward the vision for FN, e.g. FVAFS, AFS,

Treaty

FN want more than just provide labour, i.e.

numbers. Want more input into methodology

and assist with developing expansions

Increase user /licensing fees for the recreational sector (user fees act a barrier)

FN to do more creel surveys – get contract

Increased funding for complete coverage, e.g. creel, capacity and training

FN want more economic opportunities wrt CM to utilize capacity that is already built. FN can decide how to best utilize the current capacity, FSC, creel, even forestry, or moose etc..more generalists so that they could be like

Report

Nisga’a have used the Justice Institute to train guardians who work on multiple files, i.e. not just fish but wildlife, and lands management

AFS budgets are already stretched to maximum

COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH

Accurate/timely distribution of minutes from every meeting

Use IMAWG as communication vessel (FNFC)

Standardize information formats

More face-to-face meetings vs. Letters and emails

DFO communication as working relationship – NOT a dictating relationship

Transparency in information

Development of fact sheet on the process and benefits to catch monitoring

Involve community – share information

Inter-national (First Nations) communication, the internal business of nations, not aggregates

DFO to report out (quarterly updates) during transitional period

Needs to be more robust

Fishers need to understand the process

Adequate discussions to get people on board need to know what the data will be used for

Douglas treaty don’t feel that they are required to submit numbers

Community and watershed based newsletter

Word of mouth between fishers

Website/band website

More timely responses

Need clarity around what and why the communication is occurring – be clear about objectives – explain the changes and why

Regular reporting to Chiefs and councils

DFO managers need to engage more

Lack of communications from DFO back to FN

Implications of treaty

Education and outreach at the community level to explain benefits/opportunities, challenges and concerns, e.g. why a given closure is important

DFO needs to maintain communications with FN since this will reduce misunderstandings


“natural resource managers”

Developing closer working relationships with industry visa PICFI and Commercial Fisheries Enterprise (CFE)

Gainful employment and having slack capacity

Increase numbers of FN monitors on the ground

Long-term commitment of resources to ensure programs are taken seriously and demonstrate a deeper level of commitment

Monitoring other fisheries

AFS budgets have been frozen for 20 years, cost increasing not just catch data, its storage, management, and analysis

Local licensing and provincial involvement to pay for additional monitoring

The need for longer employment to maintain capacity

The need for regional licenses and maintain resources in local areas

Capacity building for guardians, job shadowing.

The need for resources to have community engagement and education

Costs for CM being downloaded on commercial fishery which will impact ability to fish FSC

AFS budgets are already stretched to maximum

CULTURAL / REGIONAL

Various levels of knowledge within different nations

FN to monitor all fisheries within their given territory

DFO and FN have different objectives and vision for different regions

Information sharing protocols need to be developed

Ecological impacts like fish farms or mountain pine beetle

Delays in test results impacts fisheries executions affects are different in any area

Need to be mindful that this will not be a cookie cutter solution, there will be regional differences

Political implications – treaty/AFS/AAROM

etc...

Sto:lo could film and record all of the different

fisheries to show the world and to assist the

public in understanding their fishery.

DFO must do a better job communicating its rationale and objectives

DFO should utilize youtube or other web based technology to inform average people about what exactly catch monitoring is for each sector

Need for FN to share their programs amongst each other as well

FN need a better understanding of each fishery and how information is being used

Not a lot of knowledge about what happens past Sawmill creek

More information from DFO about why this work is so critical: conservation, FSC, escapement planning etc..

DFO needs to be clear about or define a structure that will effectively deal with the implementation of any changes, and must have a consultation plan to deal with FRMC

Communications will be done vis-a-vis band councils, LFFA, FVAFS

UFFCA has CFR’s to disseminate information

Need a type of ambassador to promote the changes being proposed

FN have no current understanding of the FMCR

Lack of meaningful consultation

Need to simplify the FMCR

Need more “on the ground” inter-sectoral exchanges to be able to tell stories and share to build trust and understanding

Brochures about changes should be distributed

Website are effective, e.g. FNFC, LFFA, UFFCA FRAFS Watershed talk etc.

Develop a media strategy

Consultations agreements required

More inter-tribal communications will build trust

Communications with FN will be done through AGA’s and regular interface with regional ARMA’s

Working with the school boards to educate young people about CM

Catch Monitor’s as ambassadors’ to educate the public


Sensitivity about cultural practices

Need to be respectful and mindful that each region may develop its own regional approach

Regions need to develop an inventory or baseline

Specific fishing site locations known within regions

Adjacency policy on Vancouver island

Need to develop FN-FN protocols currently

there are some but not well known or

understood

DFO should monitor FN equally

Regionally based licensing for the rec. Fishery

Update fishing methods and locations on licenses

Having cross cultural awareness from DFO to FN

Overall impression is that current FSC demand and by extension fishing pressure is not that much in UFFCA area

Traditional fishing sites may be compromised

In times of abundance FN will catch more fish

Area based and species based for all sectors, resources must stay within a given region

Local licensing and provincial involvement to pay for additional monitoring

The need for regional licenses and maintain resources in local areas

Approach must be developed within the regions

Develop a catalogue of traditional harvest practices

Generation of multiple reports that assist the community and nation

Development of a North Coast Forum for FN to deal with all species

Need to develop regional level plans based on objectives and agreed to approach including costs and resources required. Need to know logistics before plans can be developed

DFO needs to be more in tune with FN at the community/nation level

Metlakatla trying to increase allocations for decades / population increasing, but nothing only decreases

Recreational fishery is sensitive topic on Skeena

More outreach particularly for the youth

Credibility will demonstrate benefits and communicates that back for both DFO and FN

The need for resources to have community engagement and education

Catch numbers can be used to demonstrate the increased needs for FSC

Generation of multiple reports that assist the community and nation

Follow-up bi-lateral meeting to discuss report findings

Cultural interface / sensitivity training

Community meetings and newsletters

FN are still not clear what the changes FMCR are operational, policy etc...before FN can figure out a way forward it is important to be clear just what the changes are and how best to respond

DFO must do a better job informing FN what the changes are and what they mean

DFO should have a community outreach program to work with FN to demonstrate new system

Need to be more specific about details of what FMCR means at a high level

DFO needs to be more in tune with FN at the community/nation level

Connection to the M&C panel don’t know a lot about the M&C panel

Need a connection to the band councils / ARMA`s

Need to be clear which managers are for what reason TRANSARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Joint management /co-management

Full report from DFO on data collected

Elimination of discriminatory monitoring practices

DFO to foster better relations

FN want to see more accountability in the recreational sector

Trust

Accountability for the recreational fishery needs 100% coverage

Perceived impact on allocations

Implemented based on principle of equally for all sectors


EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL CM & PROGRAMS

FSC At-legay

FSC Namgis

Nisga’a model

Prawn and Salmon e-logs

Log-book

Guardians boats

Metlakatla Catch Calendar

Develop FN catch monitoring opportunities like Chehalis etc..

Sto:Lo fisheries as an example since they already structure their fisheries to protect weak stocks

M&C panel came out to observe the Sto:Lo fishery

Central Coast – data management advisor

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS & STANDARDS

FN need to do more baseline inventory by developing their own surveys on migratory and resident species

Monitoring commensurate with level of risk

If numbers are higher could shut down fisheries

FN want to be able to monitor other sectors

Communal information should respect confidentiality

FN not a “user group”

Providing information shouldn’t prejudice DFO / FN negotiations

FN should be able to keep all catches don’t believe in throwing anything back

Need good communications based on the outcomes of this exercise

Discrimination felt as not all sectors have the same level of catch reporting, i.e. rec.

Some catch is unreported-hard for managers to report to DFO when information not shared between fishers and ARMA’s.

Help ensure traditional fisheries aren’t overfished

Information can be used for science

Inter-tribal sharing of information can help

with management Put more fish on the

table

DFO needs to collaborate with FN and agree upon a risk assessment framework for any

Having FN collect data should make it more credible

Lack of trust by FN as to what DFO is doing with the numbers ( this is a two way street)

Transparency / equitable

Fear that catch numbers could result in overall reductions to FN allocations

Proper monitoring can increase access and build relationships and trust with DFO and other sectors

Validation of the information received

There needs to be an audit of DFO’s expansion

process again to build trust

DFO needs to engage at a deeper level to

ground truth their expansion process

Increased public confidence through

transparency

Recreational fishers have voluntary data submission, this must change

Data must be 100% defensible

There are two data collection systems

Data must not restrict FN access

There needs to be follow-through as to what DFO is doing with the data

DFO reporting out needs to be consistent with data provided

Tighten up DFO’s internal processes since data passes through many hands

DFO spends too much time on FN enforcement

Given the low escapement trends and overall declining productivity FN concerned that this will eventually lead to an overall reduction of FN FSC numbers

Treaty allocations will affect UFFCA access

The way DFO lumps all Fraser FN into one category does not tell the real story of FSC catch

Inconsistent CM between AFS and independent contracting for CM

DFO exerts too much control over FSC fisheries

DFO needs to be more transparent and accountable in terms of FMCR

FN have provided data but not sure how it is being used

This will take time and DFO must be willing to demonstrate it collaborating with FN

Need to agree on what information is required


given species or fishery including tools

Helps DFO make better decisions

Better grasp of FSC needs

Provides time series for Aboriginal managers to make better decisions

Concerns that other species are not as well monitored, e.g. snapper, ling cod, clams, others...

Benefits are, real time information for decision makers

Baseline data needed to rebuild weak stocks

FN need to define FSC something to do with

the interpretation of Sparrow court case

FN want more control over their own data

FN to share only minimal data not details, e.g. names etc..

For many FN the more information you provide the more it is used against you

Focus on biological data

FN want to have accurate, precise, well controlled data that is in the hands of FN

FN want to provide raw data only

Collaborating with FN to develop management groups and CU’s

Use pilot projects in the regions, assess risks

More information about creel survey, i.e. methodology etc..

Need to agree on what information is required and how it is going to be used or not

Uniform or data collection standards, currently not done to a standard

FN want to be able to decide which information to submit, not be told

FN need to lead based on priority access

Catch numbers can be used to demonstrate the increased needs for FSC

FN will provide catch numbers only

Standards / guidelines / criteria for FSC CM

FN want more benefits, e.g. decision making incl: TEK, ownership, honoring the culture

FN want to build their own database for statistical analysis to protect their own interest

Develop a catalogue of traditional harvest practices

How to standardize FN FSC information requirements (regions? Not sure)

The use of information and reporting back to

and how it is going to be used or not

Catch numbers will restrict FN moving forward

Trust

Concerns about the growth of the Recreational fishery and the pressure on the fishery

Provincial jurisdiction and issue

Senior managers take ownership and ensure all directives are are followed within all departments within DFO

Cultural interface / sensitivity training

FN are still not clear what the changes FMCR are operational, policy etc...before FN can figure out a way forward it is important to be clear just what the changes are and how best to respond

DFO must do a better job informing FN what the changes are and what they mean

Need to be more specific about details of what FMCR means at a high level

TRUST

Metlakatla trying to increase allocations for decades / population increasing, but nothing only decreases

Recreational fishery is sensitive topic on Skeena

Need to be clear which managers are for what reason

Operationally there seems to be no accountability between different levels within DFO

ROLE OF FNFC

FNFC good for sharing information and best practices

FNFC to continue to communicate FN concerns

Develop a CM implementation group to maintain momentum and act on recommendations

FNFC to continue sharing information about each other’s CM programs.

FNFC – should work on the “adjacency policy” it interferes with ancient practices

FNFC has charter agreement

Species at Risk Act (SARA) vast reach at


communities ( can be requested by public)

Information should be for management purposes only

Information given is used to demonstrate the interest / gain more access for Skeena FN

Standards need to be agreed upon, what are DFO standards?

Inconsistency in application of “standards” must be the same standard for everyone

DFO realizes the importance of measuring the priority access

provincial level

Increase use of ARROMs and more engagement with the FNFC to find out how to develop at BC wide scale.

Allow FNFC to do more in terms of next steps

Have a bilateral meeting in May/June to discuss findings

DFO and FN to develop an implementation plan

Data standards and guidelines for application


4 Feedback key themes The process outcomes and questions were designed to drill down into the experiences of the participants by asking challenging questions and recording the outcomes. Many of the questions used were based on the ORID model (objective, reflective, interpretive, and decisional). Using this method assists in making connections to who, what, where, when, and why, while identifying the purpose and resources to carry out these activities. The major areas identified in the workshop including but not limited to the following elements:

1) VISION 2) COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH 3) ECONOMIC 4) CAPACITY 5) CULTURAL / REGIONAL 6) TRANSARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY 7) INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS & STANDARDS 8) ROLE OF FNFC 9) SUCCESSFUL CATCH MONITORING PROGRAMS

Vision

First Nations are empowered and in control of their own FSC information including the use, storage, TEK, and analysis, and through a set of regional collaborative agreements/schedules with DFO, set out how that information will be used. It is understood that information is first and foremost for the protection of Aboriginal Rights and will be set to a rigorous standard that is defensible and agreed to by DFO and other FN. Each sector must agree to a set of standards, and all sectors must follow the same rules. The business of CM is primarily controlled by FN corporations and Inter-sectoral relationships are based on respect for priority access, whereby trust and transparency between FN and DFO and other sectors is heightened. FN take on a collaborative management role in the catch monitoring programs within their regions.

Communication and Outreach

Throughout the entire process the theme of communication and outreach was prominent and reiterated in many different forms. This shouldn’t come as a surprise since the overall goal was to move from simple information exchange and advice, to full empowerment of Nations/ARMA’s. As the process moves from right to left on the participatory spectrum (diagram 1) , the public, and by extension the ARMA’s, need to foster trust and respect for one another in order to develop effective relationships required to make the FMCR a success. To the maximum extent possible, the FMCR process must develop mechanisms (e.g. workshop cycle) to seek advice and innovations in formulating solutions and to incorporate advice and recommendations into the decisions. One of the ideas generated during the workshop was to utilize the FNFC, regional AAROM bodies, and the nations as much as possible.

Shrinking resources and capacity for governments is forcing organizations to increase the numbers of collaborative management processes. Workshop participants shared many concerns about their relationship with government and specifically with DFO. People voiced a range of concerns from level of technical capacity to effective engagement. Other issues that came up spoke to the level of collaboration such as how far governments were willing to go toward


participatory decision-making, and clarifying organizational jurisdiction. DFO needs to be clear about or define a structure that will effectively deal with the implementation of any changes, and must have a consultation plan to deal with FRMC. The issue of transparency was raised several times. It was evident that these comments reflect valid concerns with regards to addressing common interests of a variety of organizations such as tribal councils and neighbouring First Nations. The diagram below demonstrates that the desire to move from information exchange to empowerment cannot come about through simple consultation, especially when dealing with a myriad of issues and demands placed on Aboriginal Resource Management Agencies. The developmental pressure being placed on many of the First Nations is overwhelming, mining, forestry, and increasingly oil and gas represent opportunities for ARMA’s or Commercial Fishing Enterprises (CFE’s) to expand products and services. Currently many Aboriginal Resource Management Agencies (ARMA’s) are functioning at the “advice level” increasingly through necessity “participatory decision making.” Many ARMA’s aspire, at the very least, to operate at the “recommended decision making” level as they move to full “empowerment.” A functioning body like the FNFC could allow FMCR to explore movement from left to right on the participatory spectrum, which for many, is the ideal situation. Diagram 1 Participatory Spectrum

Information Advice Participatory Recommended Empowerment Exchange Decision making decision making

Economic

First Nations aspirations are broad and spill into other areas of the fisheries management processes such as science and habitat; these areas are both somewhat, but not necessarily, dissimilar with respect to FMCR and the role First Nations wish to assume. Many First Nations seek opportunities to expand the current roles and responsibilities of FN catch monitors and field technicians into something with broad career opportunities and lasting sustainable employment. The Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI) was launched in 2007. This initiative was aimed at achieving environmentally sustainable and economically viable commercial fisheries where conservation was prioritized and First Nations’ aspirations to be more involved was supported. PICFI is not limited to aboriginal programming, but related to all Pacific fisheries management programming coming under the auspices of Fisheries and Aquaculture Management (FAM). The PICFI mission was a key driver for securing the long-term economic viability of BC commercial fisheries and the sustainability of fisheries resources. PICFI also had broader federal and Aboriginal objectives such as improving socio-economic conditions for FNs where DFO manages the fishery, and the transition to a post-treaty environment. PICFI laid the foundation for greater collaboration among all industry participants, FN and non-FN, by having them work together with DFO on harvest strategies to maximize the value of commercial fisheries within the context of sustainability. One of the legacies of the PICFI program has been the development of Commercial Fisheries Enterprises (CFE’s) throughout the province. CFE’s present an opportunity to explore the possibility of further developing FN enterprises. Currently CFE’s are heavily focused on logistics, marketing, and capital asset purchases to operate as independent business focused on catching, processing, and marketing fish. These fledgling organizations have the potential ability to explore other business lines like CM, training, environmental monitoring, habitat assessment, and test fishing, just to name a few.


AAROM has been in existence for ten years and also offers opportunities to develop more meaningful engagement with ARMA’s. AAROM’s spent considerable resources in three main areas: capacity, economic opportunities, and co-management (including Aboriginal Fisheries Officers). There are ???? AAROM’s throughout BC all with varying degrees of capacity and governance. The key point is that over the past ten years, many millions of dollars have been spent on capacity development. There are hundreds of skilled, trained woman and men waiting for opportunities. Catch monitoring is high on FN priority, but more needs to be done and each region will develop its own business model. The program was developed to respond to a number of issues identified during discussions on the renewal of the AFS. FN want greater participation in decision making processes used in management especially since DFO’s shrinking resources require engagement with FN on a broad range of issues

The main objectives of AAROM are:

Assist FN gain administrative, scientific/technical capacity to increase management role

To enhance collaborative management

Facilitate sound decisions making in advisory processes

Strengthen relationships through improved information sharing amongst the sectors

Improved quality of life for Aboriginal people

Capacity Based on the feedback participants were sceptical about any new system being (as many saw it) imposed by DFO. There was a general feeling of bewilderment since many FN have already spent countless resources developing their current CM systems including data management and analysis. For many the feeling was simply, “if it isn’t broken, then why fix it?” Conversely there were some FN who lack even the basics necessary to monitor their FSC fishery(e.g. computers, software, or access to the internet). Any new system needs to work for the nations and their needs; cost and technical support for any new systems must be considered. Given the fiscal realities of all levels of government (i.e. reduced public service) the question is why now and, more importantly, with what resources? DFO should provide ongoing, not one-time technical support; for example, how to use data, who can access it, and how it used in management. Training and capacity will certainly be needed. Given the gaps being created by vacating public employees, FN want to take a more holistic approach and expand the role of CM to more of a generalist, such as an Ecosystem monitoring program. This approach would require a multi agency, and even industry approach (i.e. parks Canada, EC, industry etc.). The best approach may be to begin to utilize FN catch monitors with existing capacity while continuing to build local capacity to gather and process data. Over the past twenty years there has been significant capacity developed through programs like the AFS, AAROM, and PICFI, FN have developed extensive scientific, technical, policy, and management capacity; however, in relation to catch monitoring and reporting, FN feel undervalued and even marginalized. This has tended to create a fairly high turn-over rate for positions, causing FN to devote scarce resources to training new people which they may not retain. The seasonal only nature of the work means capacity sits idle for much of the season making the position unattractive. To add what FN see as insult to injury, there were examples given of third party interest groups conducting CM training in an area that had plenty of capacity already. This is not tenable to FN especially when many CM are sitting idle or have taken their capacity elsewhere.

Cultural / Regional

It is important to understand that a “one size fits all” approach will not work for BC First Nations. The geography and diversity is too large, which means DFO should recognize that each ARMA/FN must develop its own implementation


plan. That said, there is a possibility of getting a consensus on an implementation plan from a number of regions (i.e. Vancouver Island, Lower Fraser, Skeena, Upper Fraser etc.). Without exception, FN want to monitor all fisheries, not just AFS, within their territories since they are already there and know and understand the culture and geography (depth of Aboriginal interest). FN are clear that an expanded role for FN CM is a good long-term solution since FN are not going anywhere. The treaty process in BC will not likely replace existing AFS agreements anytime soon so where possible, DFO should

utilize existing agreements. Political implications like treaty, or sensitivity about cultural practices, or adjacency policy

will require a regional approach and means that regional managers must strive to have a deeper level of engagement

with local FN. FN see themselves as a preferred supplier of goods and services and DFO should use this special

relationship to develop CM programs that work for both parties.

Transparency/Accountability FN had plenty to say about these two elements, much of it aimed at DFO and its perceived hidden agenda(s)(i.e. why a

new system, and what will DFO do with the data?). FN voiced concerns that supplying information on catch is one thing,

but requesting anything more like personal names, or even bands licenses etc.will not work. Of equal importance was

the need to deal with an unrestrained recreational fishery which is seen as receiving special or privileged treatment

demonstrated by the voluntary data submission versus mandatory for many FN and commercial sectors.

There is still a lot of fear that catch numbers could result in overall reductions to FN allocations and so it is important for DFO to be clear why and for what purpose the data collected will be used.

Information Requirements and Data Standards

First Nations understand that in order to manage the fisheries resources, access to quality information is essential but how it is collected and for what purpose is still not clear between FN and DFO. Compounding this level of complexity is the fact that catch reporting for FSC is not consistent between regions. Inconsistent application of CM, limited standards for FSC catch monitoring programs, and a focus on salmon rather than other marine species (e.g. groundfish, shellfish, or pelagic) means that careful interface between the parties is necessary. . However in times of shrinking resources increased support by DFO personnel may be unlikely. Fn were clear that their objectives were similar to those of DFO, i.e. to meet/exceed standards by having Certified monitors and service providers (National Dockside Monitoring Standards & Marine Stewardship Council Chain of Custody Standards). Furthermore DFO should, where possible seek partnerships with regional organizations like FVAFF”s to establish protocols for validation and audits.

FN need to do more baseline inventory by developing their own surveys on migratory and resident species within a holistic framework including being able to monitor other environmental sectors. Inter-tribal sharing of information can help with management and put more fish on the table for those FN currently not meeting their FSC targets. FN are sceptical about the risk assessment framework since for many any level of risk is UNACCEPTABLE. Extensive consultation on this important matter is essential.

FN want more control over their own data. For many FN the use of the information provided has exacerbated strained relationships since the more information you provide the more it is used against you. FN want to have accurate, precise, well controlled data that is in the hands of FN and at this point will only provide DFO with raw numbers of catch.. Further pilot projects will most likely be the best for moving the FMCR initiative forward.


For many FN there is no timely, in-season, information to assess whether catch targets were met for FSC harvest. Furthermore, it is difficult to track permits that were being issued and the distribution of communal catch, important since the Aboriginal Fishery Strategy (AFS) Communal License requires annual reporting of catch and effort to DFO. This requirement was being met; however, the data has to be compiled manually, taking a substantial amount of time, which meant there wasno near real time in-season information available for some marine FN; this information could only be provided post season. Any new or current database must accommodate First Nations needs as well as DFO. BC FN need access to timely FSC catch data uploaded in a standard format in order to do comparative analysis. When this has occurred the working relationship between DFO and some marine FNstaff has been strengthened. Good reporting systems provide timely FSC catch information to the First Nations and DFO, and provide an avenue for First Nations to better meet the reporting requirements, as outlined in the communal license. When done well these functions help elevate the fisheries management role of First Nations and promotes workable solutions on allocations of shared fisheries resources between First Nations while assisting in conservation and rebuilding of fishery resources. For some BC FN the collection, use, storage and analysis of FSC catch reporting has affirmed the Aboriginal rights and title and deep interests in the resource. Finally, more and more, DFO has been asking for greater catch detail and spreading to other species (ie: shellfish, groundfish) without increasing contribution funds to do this which is creating more tension; FN are clear with more responsisbility comes the need for more resources; the off-loading of CM services to FN is both a blessing and a curse without any new commitment to resources.

Role of FNFC

FSC fisheries monitoring and catch reporting is a province-wide issue and will require a coordinated provincial and multi-

pronged approach;for example, all of the ARMA’s, AAROM’s, and FNFC need to dedicate time and resources to

implementing any changes agreed to by both parties. These arrangements will be done according to each region’s

priorities, resources, capacity and overall readiness to beging.

Based on the feedback FN were clear that this initiative needed immediate follow-up, such as a bilateral meeting to

discuss recommendations and plan for moving forward. There was concensus that FNFC should take the lead.

Furthermore, a provincial work group is desired to steer the FMCR alignment process. FNFC has completed its charter

agreements with the regional FN; therefore CM working group has support. Finally, attention needs to be given to data

standards and guidelines for use, storage, and handling of information.

5 Conflict Resolution At each point of contact between the ARMA’s and other sectors or governments, there is potential for conflict. DFO and FN should decide from the outset how to deal with differences of opinion. There are many conflict resolution models and one should be chosen that works for the needs of the ARMA’s, community, or TC.

Conflict can form part of a catalyst for change. Often this will boil down to individual skills, knowledge, expertise and leadership; however, this can be mitigated if everyone agrees to the process at the outset. The process is complex, expensive, time consuming, and can produce unpredictable results that may be unacceptable to some. Therefore, it is worth time and energy to develop solid strategies for dealing with conflict. New relationships can form collaborative efforts in the future which have the potential to be strong and enduring.


6. Project Evaluation At each the first two sessions participants were asked to evaluate the workshop, which for many participants, was quite onerous since they had been through three and half hours of questions. Adding more questionnaires seemed to overload the participants. The feedback forms definitely demonstrated a high level of satisfaction with the process and many responded that this type of event needed to continue.

Indicators

Measuring success of the engagement process: Inclusiveness (ARMA managers and technicians, etc.) Culturally and regionally diverse Informative (making sure participants were informed before engaging, e.g. primers and brochures) Timely (start and end on time, get information out asap, stay connected) Participant numbers/level of interest Networking & relationship building (the process must encourage networking) Level of satisfaction with the process (based on feedback questionnaires)


7. Recommendations The following is a list of some evaluation criteria that FMCR alignment may use as an evaluation framework to track and

monitor progress of a future FMCR alignment or implementation:

Planning – the planning process is an ongoing exercise and will require a strategy for implementation, one that is agreed to by DFO and BC FN. But some structured interface must be established to hold the parties accountable and demonstrate the commitment to collaboration. It will require partnerships and collaboration with ARMA’s, provincial and federal governments, and industry. The planning process will also require many resources including financial and human and will include the need for technology (e.g. human mapping and storage of information pertaining to but not limited to capacity, resources) and an agreed-to strategic planning document that can guide the process.

Integrating – engaging and collaborating with ARMA’s will ensure a greater chance of success by allowing the parties to implement a plan based on the best available and agreed-to experts, science, and process.

Assessing – assessment is an essential component of the framework. In order to proceed the FMCR alignment must be committed to working with ARMA’s agreed-to goals and objectives. It is necessary for the assessments and the subsequent criteria to be agreed to by the parties (e.g. increased capacity, increased inter-agency interface, increased resources and efficient service delivery). The FMCR may explore web based tools which would be of use for keeping everything in one place. Having all status reports and inventory information available in one place is a strength.

Interfacing – the FMCR will need to develop an interface mechanism to monitor and assess periodically, the state of the plan. This can be done through technology and a series of indicators agreed to by the parties.

Producing – part of the plan will include various elements, e.g. economic development, technical interface , communication and education which will allow for the development of products and services which are in sync with the FMCR alignment process.

Balancing – the need to continually balance the differing trade-offs between user groups and being adaptable to the changing environment in relation to the plan is necessary.

The action plan considers the use of SCHEMES mnemonic to check that the action plan is comprehensive.

SCHEMES stands for:

Space.

Cash.

Helpers/People.

Equipment.

Materials.

Expertise.

Systems.

32 | P a g e

Communications and Outreach

Recommendation Action Date

1) DFO needs to do a better job informing BC FN about the FMCR. To this end they should consider preparing a FAQ sheet specifically about the purpose, objectives, and how, if at all, it will affect FSC CM.

Request that the FAQ sheet be respectful and culturally sensitive; it is meant to inform not provoke.

immediately

2) Increased interface / field trips and cultural exchanges between harvest sectors to demonstrate and educate about each fishery.

Resources need to be identified so that more frequent exchanges occur between the sectors as well as between FN.

Summer 2013

3) FN throughout the process were often pleasantly surprised to see and hear about neighbouring FN CM programs and services. Regional ARMA’s should increase inter-face with each other as well as with the public at large to educate and inform about breadth and depth of programs offered and to seek points of collaboration in order to reduce redundancy.

That regional ARMS’ s include resources to be able to meet and share information and best practices up to 2X per year.

Fall 2013

4) At the very least more consultation with the regions on the FMCR, since for many FN the FMCR is still not known or fully understood, even though it is a final policy document.

DFO needs to plan a series of engagements with the regions/nations/ ARMA’s to talk about the FMCR

Fall 2013


Economic


1) That an economic opportunity think tank comprised of ARMA’s be convened to explore opportunities for FN to develop business models for securing government contracts under the Aboriginal Procurement strategy.

Resource should be secured to bring the group of ARMA’s together to discuss models for advancing the FN aspirations in CM and test fishing, as a start.

Immediately

2) That DFO, once and for all, must seek meaningful ways to utilize the Government of Canada’s Aboriginal Procurement Strategy, in terms of its own objectives (e.g. cost cutting, reducing the public service) while improving the lives of Aboriginal people.

Once the ARMA’s have come up with business model(s) for conducting CM and test fishing, DFO should work with the BC FN to implement the plan.

Immediately

3) Presently there are about 26 CFE’s in the province with varying levels of capacity. DFO should consider a pilot project with an advanced level CFE to utilize resources and opportunities these organizations provide.

Form dock side monitoring company. One company to service any native fishers for all species and for all gear types.

Fall 2013

4) Under the enhanced accountability framework, moving from left to right on the matrix, i.e. from basic to moderate to enhanced levels of monitoring, FN will need to be certified to monitor fisheries especially at the enhanced level. It is inappropriate for DFO to demand that FN CM be monitored at a given standard and then contract with third parties contractors to deliver FN CM training; this takes money out of the Aboriginal community. Also existing training curricula provided by current regimes are heavily focused on marine fisheries; nothing exists for inland EO fisheries. As per the National Dock Side Monitoring Program, FN need to develop their own company responsible for curriculum development and training that meets federal and FSC monitoring standards.

BC FN company to develop curriculum for in-land CM EO focused fisheries.

Form FN Company to do dock side monitoring activities

Fall 2013 and ongoing

into 2014


Capacity


1) Due to various reasons, some FN find themselves with unused / underutilized capacity and want to explore ways of making better use of their human resources. A comprehensive gap analysis for CM and test fishing should be conducted.

Host a series of workshops to deal specifically with capacity gaps, underutilized capacity, priorities, and remedies for redress.

DFO should begin collaborating with FN to develop better working situations, i.e. better, longer, more meaningful jobs for FN CM.

Fall 2013

2) Identify opportunities and resources for capacity expansion, e.g. the Watchman and Guardian Programs.

Guardians and Watchman programs in some cases need to be expanded to include monitoring of other sectors.

Guardians must be able to do more than Observe, record, and report.

There is significant capacity already developed in the inland context for FSC fisheries. Inland now needs to have certification to monitor EO fisheries.

Immediately

3) Expand the use of TEK at all levels of management including catch monitoring and reporting.

DFO and regional ARMA’s should consider how best to do this at the regional scale.

Use Basian statistical model to incorporate TEK at the PSC level.

Ongoing

Cultural/Regional


1) The issue of DFO’s Adjacency Policy and exactly how and

where it is applied has created misunderstandings and in

some cases real conflict. FN need to develop and

document inter-tribal protocols relating to the sacred

cultural practice of sharing fisheries resources and how if

at all this may relate to DFO’s adjacency Policy. It is up to

the ARMA’s to deal with this issue, not DFO.

Regional ARMA’s should be developing regional protocols about sharing fish; this information should be honored by DFO. This issue has a lot to do with transparency and accountability as well.

Immediately


2) In collaboration with the province and to some extent the federal government begin exploring ways to expand the role of FN catch monitors to include freshwater species, especially with the SARA and invasive species issues.

ARMA’s should begin including the province in their meetings to discuss program objectives and sound economic applications.

Fall 2013

Transparency/Accountability


1) Plan on hosting a series of inter-sectoral workshops to share best practices and latest know-how on catch monitoring.

M&C panel or FNFC and the ARMA’s work with recreational and commercial sector to develop workshop objectives

November 2013

2) DFO collaborate with FN to expand their CM programs to monitor other fisheries. There are already examples of FN doing this in BC. Any expansion opportunities must be based on best science and information standards.

DFO work with ARMS’s to look for areas of obvious expansion opportunities.

ongoing

3) DFO must be clear about regional roles and responsibilities of its managers and their applications of the information given.

Regular scheduled interface at the regional level ARMA’s.

Immediately

4) DFO must demonstrate commitment by moving these recommendations up the chain to senior management level.

DFO to assign senior level personnel to FN CM file particularly as it pertains to the FMCR.

Immediately


Information Requirements and Standards


1) Definition of FSC-FN and DFO need to agree upon a definition of what FSC is in order to develop standards and criteria for collection, use, analysis, and storage of the information. Refer to Cohen.

Develop a working definition of FSC immediately

2) The M&C panel report (Roadmap) has developed some generic criteria (conservation risk, fisheries operations, catch, ecosystem/habitat, statistical quality) for measuring monitoring levels, i.e. basic, moderate, enhanced monitoring. Based on these criteria, moving from left to right on the matrix will require additional resources. DFO and FN need to work collaboratively to agree upon which fisheries will require basic, moderate, and enhanced monitoring effort.

DFO and ARMA’s begin assessing and finding agreement on monitoring levels for specific fisheries and begin scoping out potential costs to achieve inclusive management objectives, and reconcile the FMCR with a degree of practicality. Do not tax existing programs.

Ongoing with final

date spring 2014

3) Develop regional Information sharing protocols that respect the local area FN and their objectives and may include: verifications and landings, license and allocation clarification, allocation transfer clarification, sharing data between platforms and traceability.

Begin working with the regional ARMA’s to develop

protocols for information sharing and dissemination.

Ongoing with final

date spring 2014

4) DFO wants all sectors to be able to integrate information into the new PacFish program, but many FN have already spent considerable time and resources developing their own reporting and in some cases licensing systems. DFO must seek ways in which, to the best ability, these systems integrated into the current FN systems. That it requires fewer resources and is not onerous on the FN. The ARMA’s should determine the level of effort at what point their regimes are to be integrated into the PAcFish if at all.

DFO must to develop integrated approach WRT

incorporating the existing capacity and systems

employed to report CM data.

If this is not possible than DFO must provide the

additional resources to transition, including training, to

a new system.

Ongoing


Role of FNFC


1) Begin utilizing the full suite of FNFC communications mechanisms and the FNFC Communications Coordinator to begin scheduling regular FN FMCR alignment updates on progress and next steps.

Monthly update conference calls

Bi-monthly communiqués

FN Leadership Council Information bulletin updates

Community dialogue sessions

Online communications, e.g. website, email distribution, and social media

Regular updates to BC FN political Leadership

Master calendar of events

Immediately

2) Plan to have a two day workshop to follow-up on the report’s recommendations.

DFO to commit resources to a follow-up workshop.

FNFC to coordinate either regional or province wide workshop

Ensure that the report recommendations are well circulated and time given to digest so that FN can provide feedback on overall themes and recommendations in preparation for next steps.

June 2013

3) Plug into the regional ARMA’s since many of the organizations also have communications services and can easily assist in planning/coordinating, and disseminating information.

Utilize communications coordinator from FNFC and regional ARMA’s

Immediately

4) With the AMAs form a working group or implementation group.

FNFC to work with the ARMA’s to develop a group of those ready, willing and able to move the FN agenda forward.

Immediately

FSC MONITORING & CATCH REPORTING · of making better use of their human resources. A comprehensive...

Documents

Transcript of FSC MONITORING & CATCH REPORTING · of making better use of their human resources. A comprehensive...