The moratorium means more than northern cod

TBroad reach

wenty years have past since the groundfish moratoria were declared. Most people think of one species and one groundfish stock when the word moratorium is mentioned. The word moratorium has become synonymous with the northern cod stock only. This is most unfortunate because while northern cod was our largest and most important groundfish stock, it represented only about 25 per cent of groundfish landed. The magnitude of the groundfish collapse impacted much beyond northern cod.

The groundfish moratoria devastated the rural economy of our province. The most productive towns and communities in the industry were hard hit due to the groundfish collapse. These include Port aux Choix, Port aux Basques, Ramea, Burgeo, Harbour Breton, Gaultois, Fortune, Grand Bank, Burin, Marystown, Trepassey, Harbour Grace, Port Union and St. Anthony. In addition, many other communities and regions lost the most important component of their economy.

While the inshore groundfish industry was primarily based on cod, it seasonally provided substantially more employment for many more weeks and impacted the economy of many more communities than is currently derived from shellfish. The groundfish collapse has had a profound effect on the south and west coast communities of the province. In fact, Newfoundland’s most productive cod stock was the stock known as Northern Gulf cod. For many years, the Gulf cod stock, which was harvested almost entirely by the inshore-based fleets throughout the year, yielded harvests in excess of 100,000 tonnes. Add to that tens of thousands of tonnes of Gulf redfish, flatfish and other species annually, and you come to realize how important groundfish stocks were to the economic livelihood of communities along the island’s west coast.

Similarly, the south coast communities were supplied by vast groundfish landings from Grand Banks and St-Pierre Bank stocks of flounder, cod, redfish, yellowtail, greysole and haddock. These groundfish stocks combined yielded vastly greater harvests and employment than those derived from northern cod.

Why is it that, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have forgotten what we have lost and what the groundfish collapse/moratoria really and truly mean?

Why is it that after 20 years we have no recovery of groundfish?

One main reason

The reasons vary, but chief among them is our failure to implement conservation-based management of our fish resources.

Rather than follow sound scientific advice and the principles of the precautionary approach to manage fish resources, we continue to establish annual catch limits based on short-term socio-political motivations, while at the same time largely ignoring science.

The fact is that groundfish species have lifespans ranging between a decade and two ( flatfish and cod) while others range up to five decades and longer (redfish).

Unfortunately, the past two decades have not been devoted to rebuilding groundfish stocks. We have, instead, chosen to continue to exploit groundfish stocks at much lower levels. These lower harvest levels, however, reflect relatively high exploitation on these stocks, particularly given their depressed spawning stock biomass levels, poor recruitment, etc.

Income, not fish

The decisions to exploit groundfish resources are driven by our need to sustain a very marginal economic attachment to the fishery to gain access to income support through the employment insurance (EI) system.

Indeed, our once-productive communities have all been replaced by an unsustainable over-reliance on depressed and over-exploited fishery resources and the EI system.

The marginal attachment to the fishery is probably best exemplified by reviewing fishing effort and participation. It is alarming to compare the participation rates in the fishery today as compared to just a couple of decades ago.

During the recent MOU process, it was revealed that the average larger fishing enterprise (greater than 40 feet) operates less than 40 days per year while the smaller vessels (less than 40 feet) operate less than 20 days, on average.

As a consequence, dependence on income support ( fishers EI program) has increased over the past two decades. By comparison, in the 1980s, fishing enterprises operated several months each year (MayOctober) and could only access EI during the months of November through April.

Even though shellfish stocks, particularly snow crab, have been more abundant in recent decades, they, too, are being over-exploited and poorly managed.

Over large areas, this resource is experiencing severe decline as short-term dependence and overexploitation are taking a toll. Indeed, many fishing enterprises are more and more dependent on a single fish stock that is experiencing decline. As shellfish declines, there will likely be even greater pressures politically and socially to increase exploitation on depressed groundfish resources. There is currently no means within the fishery management systems to adjust to this resource reality.

What can be done?

So how do we really start to rebuild our fish resources and our rural economy?

First, we must use sound fisheries management principles such as the precautionary approach to determine exploitation of fish resources based on the best available science.

That means reducing our annual harvests and bycatches of most species.

Second, we must protect and conserve any recruitment to groundfish stocks and enable successive year-classes to contribute to stock growth. That means restraining and curtailing fishing effort in favour of stock growth which must remain a steadfast goal for a period of at least the generational lifespan of the species (about two decades for cod).

Third, we must impose the same rigorous management approach to the straddling stocks on the Grand Banks as we place upon ourselves. That means implementing conservation-based management within NAFO.

Fourth, we must implement sound economic principles to the management of the fishery. That means managing the fishery as we would any other natural resource. Strategies such as that outlined have been introduced round the world with much success.

The adjustments we make will create short-term challenges; however, the payoff will be tremendous for generations to come.

The options are really limited, as our fishery resources are continuing to decline and we will eventually have even more widespread hardship than has been endured for the past two decades, particularly as shellfish declines. The fishery is on a slippery slope. While there are reasons to be optimistic about our future, opportunities can only be realized by managing differently than we have in the past.

We should not expect any different outcomes by continuing on the path we have been on for the past two decades.

Groundfish stock rebuilding is possible. We need to change our priorities and place conservation, adherence to scientific advice, and best practices in fisheries management at the forefront.