What's the Catch with Canadian Overfishing?

Environmental exploitation has become the normative form of interaction between humans and the ecosystems we rely on. This process is not limited to one specific industry or one type of environmental resource: it is extensive and pervasive, and the effects are undeniably catastrophic. The specific issue that will be explored below is that of overfishing, with concentration on a Canadian perspective and the respective policy.

Background of Overfishing in Canada

According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “overfishing refers to a rate or level of fishing that is not sustainable, i.e. that hampers the rebuilding or recovery of a fish stock.” Unlike some environmental concerns that are just beginning to capture the interest of the public and of policy makers, overfishing has been a hot topic for multiple decades. Perhaps after so many years in the spotlight, the topic has lost its lustre and, in falling from the central discussion and debate, is believed to no longer be a problem by the general public.

The 1970’s were a turning point for Newfoundland’s cod fishing industry. In an ill attempt at conservation, a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) was introduced alongside a 200-mile offshore fishing limit. In theory, this might have seemed a reasonable approach, but the TAC was based on the advice of government scientists who later turned out to have made severely disproportionate estimates. For a short period of time, the industry was incredibly profitable: the number of fishermen in Newfoundland more than doubled in the latter half of the decade, and offshore fishing saw remarkable intake of cod. Meanwhile, more traditional inshore fishermen were suffering as their catches shrank. It wasn’t until over a decade later, in 1989, that scientists finally admitted their projections had been wrong, and that cod stocks were declining at an alarming rate. The government decreased the quota for cod, but Newfoundland fishermen weren’t even able to meet the quota by that point. “For many in the fishery his was a perfect example of how the federal government was ultimately responsible for the mismanagement of the cod fishery,” CBC noted of the blame that was placed by many of the nearly 40 000 individuals who lost their jobs when a moratorium on commercial cod fishing was laid in 1992. Whether or not the numbers would still be dramatic enough to earn such a title, the layoff was, at the time, labeled ‘the biggest layoff in Canadian history.’

Despite some upturn over the decades following the moratorium, cod stocks once again saw surprising decline in 2018, signalling that current quotas remain ineffective if we expect the cod population to ever make a recovery. On top of this, the crab and shrimp stocks that have been fished for the past twenty years have also fallen, leaving fishermen with no reliable source of income.

Consequences

At first thought, it might be assumed that the consequences of overfishing are limited to culinary and economic concerns. Fisheries and Oceans Canada addresses the fact that “overfishing is a global problem with many serious social, economic and environmental implications.” Emphasis is placed on the importance of fishing as a source of income, and it is succinctly mentioned that entire ecosystems should be considered with a precautionary approach. Overfishing of particular species not only has a negative impact on the food chain as an entire system, but also results in the unintentional – and careless – harm to numerous types of untargeted marine life.

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of overfishing, we must turn to the Canadian Wildlife Federation, where attention is properly given to the interconnectedness of ocean health and the health of other ecosystems we rely on. They give a proper overview of some of the important factors that are missed on our government website, including the fact that scientists use various “indicator species” to point out an array of potential problems that relate far beyond the shorelines of oceans.

Current Regulation

According to our own Fisheries Department, Canada has some of the most regulated fisheries in the world. Fishing is regulated at the federal level by the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act lacks an overarching statement of purpose, but does include section 6 as ‘Factors To Be Taken into Account’ (essentially, a list of things that need to be taken into consideration before any decisions are made in regard to the Act or in regard to application of the Act). Not only does the first of these considerations pertain to commercial activity, but the purpose as outlined by s. 6.1 is: “to provide for the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries.” The Act also outlines specifics about licensing for fisheries, and clarifies that the Minister will be responsible for determining quantities of fish or fishing gear that may be allocated to various persons, departments, or agencies.

In addition to the federal legislation, provinces may develop their own regulations. Newfoundland and Labrador utilise a document known as ‘Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery Regulations’ which delves into specifics regarding certain locations and species; this document also focuses on the regulation of licensing.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for determining quotas for specific species from year to year, providing funding for fishing initiatives, certifying catches for export, and a variety of other complex and interacting factors relating to Canadian commercial fishing.

In contrast to the narrative surrounding some other pressing environmental concerns, the issue of overfishing is widely acknowledged and our government does a remarkable job at presenting information and regulation in a way that conveys a sense of assurance that the issue is being addressed and improved upon.

What’s the Catch?

Despite our supposed strict regulations on commercial fishing, there’s no denying that the issue of overfishing persists, and that the rate of fishing in Canada is entirely unsustainable. According to a relatively recent report released by Oceana, only 24% of Canadian fish stocks are considered healthy. This statistic should be considered alongside the estimate that only one third of fisheries globally are being fished at a rate that could allow for recovery of stocks. Even as profits superficially increase for the Canadian market, those profits are coming from a very specific, limited group of shellfish that have higher profit margins than other species. The reality is that fisheries are actually becoming less and less diverse.

There’s a myriad of factors that have allowed for the continuance of overfishing, and they begin (as you might have guessed) with the Fisheries Act itself. Rather tactfully – and presumably intentionally – the Act places emphasis on the monetary value of the fishing industry, carefully avoiding any mention of the fundamental reason for fishing. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not ignorant to the primary reason to fish: their website directly acknowledges that “billions of people around the world rely on fish and seafood as a direct source of nutrition.” Law professor Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny writes, “this absence from the regulatory regime is not as surprising when we consider that the dominant purpose of fisheries in general and their regulation is commercial in nature. […] The commercial catches were valued in 2015 at over $3 billion.” He even contends that the intrinsic goal of conservation could be to ensure the future of commercial exploitation of the resource.

It is exactly this sort of approach that lead to the mismanagement of fisheries and the ultimate downfall of the Atlantic cod that we explored at the beginning of this paper. Ransom Myers was a scientist working for Fisheries and Oceans Canada during the Newfoundland fishery crisis, and he later claimed that reports he’d worked on had warned of high fishing quotas. They were ignored to suit political ends.

One would think that we should have learned from our previous mistakes, but Oceana outlines some interesting facts about the present climate surrounding overfishing. Their three main concerns are:

• There is no legal requirement in Canada that quotas be set at levels recommended by science to ensure the long-term sustainability of our fish stocks.
• There is no requirement to report on how many Canadian non-commercial species are killed through bycatch, so the amount of waste is ignored.
• There is no national policy on using less impactful fishing gear to minimize habitat damage and reduce the bycatch of juvenile and non-target species.

For a country that boasts about its strong regulation, there is also the persistent issue of a lack of enforcement of existing precautionary regulations.

Moving Forward

As we move forward, a commitment to transparency has been stressed as a critical factor for ensuring improvement. Oceana’s report concludes with a list of recommendations for limiting overfishing in Canada. The focus of these recommendations is a reliance on actual scientifically-derived numbers and the enforcement of existing regulations. Secondarily, the authors of the report seem to value protection and education. The report maintains optimistic that, in light of the present state of tragedy, Canada’s fisheries, as well as fish stocks worldwide, have the potential for recovery if the correct steps are taken to ensure conservation and protection.

While the government’s approach to overfishing has, in the past, been comprised of overarching and vague statements that something merely must be done, Oceana’s guidelines are more specific, if not measurable. Whether for lack of interest of lack of understanding, they do not seem to consider the very specific role of legislation. Cloutier de Repentigny takes a drastically different stance that speaks to a deeper understanding of the broader sociological factors. He advocates for the integration of food security as a key factor that needs to be introduced as reform to the Fisheries Act is considered. Not only would this shift the central focus away from profitability, it would fall in line with the concerns relating to conservation. He closes with a line that I will borrow to end with myself: “Such a shift would be a colossal change in the legal framework of fisheries, but given what is at stake, and given the state of fish stocks, such a change is sorely needed.”

* Academic references have been removed for ease of publishing on Vocal. They can be provided upon request.