Industry/Science Collaboration: Challenges and benefits

By Gary Melvin

Department of Fisheries and OceansPopulation Ecology Division

St Andrews Biological Station

Overview of Presentation

• Background

• Transition to Collaboration:

• Stock assessment Process

• Changes to the Fisheries Act

• Collaboration

– Examples

– Benefits

– Challenges.

Background• Currently responsible for small and large pelagic fish stock

assessment and research

• 30 years experience with herring and 20 years in hydroacoustics

– For Atlantic herring

• Lead scientist and developer of most collaborative agreements with industry

• Strong promotor of using commercial fishing vessels as scientific platform for more than 20 years.

• In 2014 assumed responsibility for Atlantic Bluefin tuna, swordfish

• All stocks are involved in Industry/Science collaborations.

Transition to Collaboration

• Previous presentation on where we were and how we got there. As well as a detailed overview of science programs associated with the collaboration.

• In essence the collaboration for herring began in 1994 in response to a perceived crises in the fishery (Fat, abundance and LAI). Quota reduced from 151,500t to 80,000t then to 50,000t where it remains today.

Transition to Collaboration

• Currently we have an excellent working relationship and multiple collaborative agreements.

• Today Talk – on where are and where we are going.

• Anyone interested in the details can contact me after the presentation.

Fisheries

• Eastern Canada divided into stock areas following the NAFO convention with multiple fish stocks in each area.

• Responsibility for stocks based on 4 Regions

– Newfoundland – 2GHJ, 3KLMNOP

– Quebec – 4RS

– Gulf - 4T

– Maritimes – 4VWX, 5Z

• A few stocks are Zonal eg. Mackerel, Tuna and Swordfish

NAFO Statistical Divisions –Eastern Canada

Fisheries

• Most fish stocks are subject to annual quotas

• Science advice provided through a review process coordinated by the Canadian Stock Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) –open process.

– Results published in Research Documents

– Summary published in Stock Status Report (SSR)

• Recommendation to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans arise out from Stock Advisory Meetings –major industry input.

Landings in Tonnes - 2013

Mariti

mesGulf Total

Mariti

mesGulf Total

Herring 41,157 5,140 46,296 18,384 15,524 33,908 7,902 8,427 29,569 126,102

Mackerel 403 47 450 0 766 766 825 1,356 5,169 8,566

Swordfish 1,505 0 1,505 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,505

Tuna 524 66 589 0 10 10 153 7 27 785

Alewife 402 85 487 39 752 791 40 0 0 1,317

Eel 11 7 18 13 155 168 115 14 37 352

Salmon

(Atlantic)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Smelt 0 2 2 0 303 303 19 24 2 350

Silversides 0 90 90 0 0 0 368 0 0 458

Shark 61 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 61

Capelin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 291 30,019 30,310

Other 48 0 48 19 0 19 1 43 21 131

Total 44,111 5,436 49,547 18,455 17,509 35,964 9,422 10,161 64,844 169,938

Atlantic

TotalSpecies

Nova Scotia New BrunswickPEI

Total

Quebec

Total

NFL

Total

2013 - Dollar value in 1000’s

Mariti

mesGulf Total

Mariti

mesGulf Total

Herring 14,948 2,292 17,240 7,718 6,493 14,211 3,639 2,927 8,149 46,167

Mackerel 275 45 319 0 626 626 622 1,079 2,836 5,482

Swordfish 12,302 0 12,302 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,302

Tuna 6,180 1,082 7,263 0 169 169 2,305 89 175 10,002

Alewife 213 55 267 42 624 666 51 0 0 985

Eel 65 38 103 70 873 943 659 97 196 1,998

Salmon

(Atlantic)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Smelt 0 5 6 0 371 371 33 44 1 455

Silversides 0 147 147 0 0 0 608 0 0 756

Shark 121 1 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 122

Capelin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 6,021 6,069

Other 19,771 0 19,771 6,703 0 6,703 0 254 42 26,771

Total 53,876 3,665 57,541 14,533 9,156 23,689 7,918 4,540 17,421 111,108

Quebe

c Total

NFL

Total

Atlantic

TotalSpecies

Nova Scotia New BrunswickPEI

Total

Changes to Fisheries Act affecting Collaboration:• In Canada Fisheries governed by:

• Fisheries Act

• Oceans Act

• Species at Risk Act

• Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

• Navigable Water Act

• Prior to 2013 the department DFO could not use fish to provide funding for research.

• All Science projects funded or co-funded with industry or interested. – Larocque Legal challenge prevented the use of fish to fund research.

• Changes to the Fisheries Act now permits the setting aside of a portion of the Quota for Science and Management.

Collaboration:• Traditionally many Science/ Industry collaborative relations

were ad hoc.

• About 2007 the Department decided to formalize collaborative work in to Joint Project Agreements:

• Legal documents

• Described financial contributions

• Outlined the goals and objectives of the project

• Contained a workplan – who does what

• Defined the expected outcomes and milestones.

• In 2012 redefined ( more legal content) and now known as Collaborative Agreements.

Collaborative Agreements

• Many fishing organization and NGO’s have entered into collaborative agreements with DFO.

• Northern Shrimp

• Atlantic herring

• Offshore scallops

• Bluefin tuna

• Atlantic Swordfish

Types of Projects

• Can involve a single or multiple participants (12)

• Topics of the CA include

• Surveying – acoustic, trawl, dragger etc

• Staff for industry programs (eg. Sentinal fisheries)

• Biological sampling

• Indexed fishing

• Research

• In all case the duties and responsibilities of each partner are defined in the collaborative agreement

Examples of Collaborative Agreements• Atlantic Herring

• Biological Sampling of Landings

• Small fish catch reductions

• Acoustic surveys of Spawning grounds (Seiners and Gillnetters)

• Research – several major initiatives.

• Bluefin tuna

• Review of CPUE indices

• PST Tagging of BFT to monitor migrations and origins

• Biological sampling –tissue and otolith collections

• Promotion of conventional tagging with rec fishery.

Challanges• Building trust among partners

• Decision making when DFO has the final say• No one wins if the Department makes the decision

• Sharing information

– ownership of data

– Intellectual properties

• Open discussion of concerns and issues

– DFO responsible for regulations and enforcement.

• Industry a major contributor and participant in assessment process.

Benefits• Improved understanding of issues and

concerns.

• Broader participations in the assessment and management process.

• Increase resources through leveraging of funds.

• Better understanding of the resource and how it is monitored

• Tax incentive

SUMMARY

• Both DFO and the fishing industry have developed a better understanding of each other.

• Members of the fishing industry are interested in many aspects of fisheries

research and science.

• Collaboration with the fishing industry can be extremely rewarding and informative. Often there are simple solutions to what seem to be major problems.

• The fishing industry have made a valuable contribution to scientific research and the assessment of fish stocks.

• Important to note that collecting the data is only half the of the requirements. There is also a significant cost of analysis/reporting.

• Key to Success depends upon a mechanism in the process (Research and Assessment) for industry input to be considered and valued.

MOVING FORWARD

• Major barrier has been breached – Commercial fishing vessels can be used for scientific data collection.

• Many opportunities for future cooperation and collaboration between the private and public sectors, especially in the ecosystem context.

• New acoustic systems are being released regularly with digital and quantitative outputs (eg., MS2000, SH90, Furuno, M3, broadband sounders)

• Acoustics systems onboard commercial fishing vessels can be used for:• Distribution and abundance of organisms in the water column• Species identification –multi-frequency, broadband• Behavioural studies – feeding, movement around structures• Sea bed mapping and classification, habitat utilization• Predator/prey interactions• Population dynamics• Ecosystem Production (fish and plankton)• Opportunistic Sampling during transit

• Oceanographic Data (Automated and Directed)

NAFO Divisions