Evaluating Consensus-based Fisheries Management Planning:

A Case Study from Canada’s Pacific Groundfish Fisheries

Neil DavisM.Sc. CandidateUniversity of British Columbia

Setting the Stage

• 2006 - integrated fishing begins– Comprehensive reforms to 7

groundfish fisheries

• A somewhat unique collaborative planning model– Industry-led, consensus-based,

multi-sectoral negotiations

• How well did this model work?– A systematic process evaluation– Participants’ perspectives Image: BC Business Magazine 2007

Outline

• Background– The fisheries & the planning process

• Methods– A framework for evaluation

• Results– Strengths & weaknesses of the process

• Practical Implications

Pacific Groundfish fisheries

Pacific OceanPacific Ocean

Sablefish Trap Catch Schedule II Catch (Lingcod & Dogfish)

British Columbia British Columbia

Vancouver Vancouver

Data from 1996 - 2004 Data from 1996 - 2004Maps: DFO Mapster 2007

Pacific Groundfish fisheries

Pacific OceanPacific Ocean

Rockfish Catch (directed) Trawl Catch

British Columbia British Columbia

Vancouver Vancouver

Data from 1993 - 2004 Data from 1996 - 2004Maps: DFO Mapster 2007

2005 Landed ValuesSalmon,

10%

Groundfish, 45%Pelagics,

11%

Shellfish, 34%

Pacific Groundfish Fisheries

2005 Grand Total: $326 000 000

(DFO 2005)

Groundfish Sectors (Pre-integration)

FisheryPrimary Limited Individual Annual Value Active

Gear Licenses Quotas (millions)* Licenses*

Dogfish Longline No No $1.5 44

Lingcod Hook & Line No No $1.6 66

Inside Rockfish Hook & Line Yes No $2.3

25

Outside Rockfish Hook & Line Yes No 77

Trawl Trawl Yes Yes $56.4 78

Halibut Longline Yes Yes $50.1 221

Sablefish Trap, longline Yes Yes $23.7 30

•Numbers are averages of 2002 – 2005

(DFO Regional Data Unit 2007)

Advisory Process Structure

DFO agenda:– Conserve rockfish– Accountability & monitoring as principles for reform

2 advisory committees:– Commercial Groundfish Integrated Advisory Committee

• Broad stakeholder representation• Provide overarching policy direction & advice

– Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC)• Commercial fishery & processor representatives• Develop a strategy that addresses DFO’s criteria

Evaluation Framework

1. Clear Purpose

2. Incentive to Participate

3. Representation

4. Procedural Framework

5. Continuous Involvement

6. Scope

7. Facilitation

8. Equal Opportunity

9. Freedom to Explore

10. Transparency

11. Information

12. Financial & human resources

13. Time

15. Commitment

16. Personal Conduct

Fairness & Effectiveness

Process Structure Decision-making Support Participant Conduct

Methods• Semi-structured interviews

– 16 of 20 primary participants – all 7 commercial sectors

• Questions:– Performance on criteria– Additional elements– Strengths and weaknesses

• Analysis:– Coding transcripts– Aggregating & summing

responsesImage: Canadian Sablefish Association

Results

Participants' Process Evaluations

0 25 50 75 100

Commitment

Resources

Representation

Personal conduct

Information

Scope

Time

Continuous involvement

Procedural framework

Freedom to explore

Transparency

Facilitation

Purpose

Flexibility

Incentive

Equal opportunity

Cri

teri

a

Percent Agreement (%)

Strengths of the Process

Strength Mentionsa Functions

Consensus 14 Equalises influence on decisions, forces participants past positioning

Independent facilitation 12 Guides & teaches process, enforces rules, counteracts power imbalances

Incentive 11 Undesirable consequences of non-agreement motivates commitment and compromise

aNumber of respondents that volunteered this element as a strength

Weaknesses of the Process

Weakness Mentionsa Suggested improvements

Code of conduct 6 CIC should create more detailed rules/agreements addressing conflicts of interest and conduct outside process

Representative selection process

6 DFO should create and enforces a formalised, consistent, and transparent representative selection process

Government support 4 DFO should provide greater political support, financial support, and human resources

a Number of respondents that volunteered this element as a weakness

Influential Elements Outside the Framework

• High quality individuals– Lead by example– Innovate & cooperate– Non confrontational

• Prior experience– Positive & negative experiences are

both motivators

Image: US Environmental Protection Agency

Prior Experiences

“I went through the salmon fiasco in the 90s…I watched every fishery I’d ever been involved with disappear, and tried every organisational framework I could think of to try and stop it from happening and failed at every one of them. And we're all in the same boat. We’re all sitting there seeing public pressure, environmental concerns, you name it. International treaty issues, aboriginal issues…if you don't organise and work together you're definitely going to be wiped out.”

» Lou, CIC member

Implications for Practice

• “The hammer”…and a seat cushion

• Success is not achieved through design alone– Individuals & experiences

• Government’s multiple roles– Support vs. manipulation

• Limitations of study– Legitimacy beyond CIC?

Image: DFO Pacific

Thank youQuestions?

Neil DavisM.Sc. CandidateUniversity of British Columbia

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

BC Ministry of EnvironmentUBC University Graduate Fellowship programDonald S. McPhee Fellowship programOMRN National SecretariatDr. Paul Wood, UBC

Estimated bycatch

SpeciesTACs for allsectors (lbs)

Estimated bycatchfor all sectors (lbs)

% of TAC utilised by bycatch

Rougheye 1 977 526 2 707 154 137 %

Shortraker 402 340 1 656 579 412 %

Yelloweye 482 930 1 378 596 285 %

Big Skate 1 125 007 2 748 460 244 %

Modified from Koolman et al. (2007)