Robert F. Keith, Terry Fenge, Peter Jacobs, and Shelagh Jane Woods

Preoccupied with the problems and opportunities of our east and west coasts, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has paid too little attention to its arctic mandate for the past several decades. Although concern has been demonstrated from time to time, through efforts to establish small commercial ventures in the North and through ongoing (if sometimes impractical) research, there has been little sustained support for local initiatives. Moreover, until recently, there has been scant acknowledgement of the significance of the subsistence fishery to northern native peoples and only token recognition of the importance of native peoples-and northerners generally-to the processes of policy making and management.

 Recent events seem to signal a rethinking of the arctic fishery by DFO. Test fisheries and support for new commercial enterprises in the Baffin region over the past two years have been encouraging. The signature of the minister, after a lengthy delay, on the Inuit land claims renewable resource sub-agreement is evidence of change. The preparation of a draft arctic marine conservation strategy in consultation with several other interest groups represents yet another positive move. And the department's recent commitment, in line with overall government policy, to the devolution of federal powers to territorial governments is an important step on the road to further reforms. Related to this is the growing interest of the Government of the Northwest Territories in expanding commercial fisheries, an indication of a more serious and concerted effort to develop programmes that will benefit northerners in the longer term.

 As important and necessary as these changes are, alone they are insufficient. They are but the foundation for new policy and action. They are first steps, and much effort is needed if we are to develop and implement an arctic fisheries policy that:

• integrates subsistence and commercial interests;
• is sensitive to the differing character of the North's regions and peoples;
• is founded upon sound biological information and sustainable ecological principles; and
• views economic criteria as important but not the sole determinants of commercial viability.

 An arctic fisheries policy must also be seen in a broader, international context. For example, Alaskan and Greenlandic fisheries are important to Canada: stocks are shared, ecosystems are interrelated. In the circumpolar world it is essential that Canada link its arctic fisheries interests to those of other countries. Also to be considered is the very real impact of the European ban on the importation of seal products and the effects of animal protection organizations on the arctic marine mammal fishery. As CARC noted in an earlier issue of Northern Perspectives (Vol.14, No.2, March-April 1986) and emphasized at its January 1987 conference on northern wildlife harvesting and the animal rights movement, the financial set-back to individuals and whole communities has been dramatic. Policy makers will have to take effective action on this front if arctic fisheries are to thrive.

It is time now to acknowledge the significance of the North and the need for policy initiatives. All agencies of the federal government must pay more attention to this region. It is a matter of national importance. New circumpolar relationships are developing. The devolution of federal authority to the territorial governments will engender profound changes in the North and the South. No less important are the changes already being felt as native land claims are negotiated and implemented. Fisheries policies and programmes must adapt. Through the exercise of political will and administrative creativity they can be instruments for northern development. Failure to take advantage of the opportunities would be a serious error.

Historical Perspectives

Subsistence Fisheries

Various fish species have long been a central component of many northern peoples' diets. A 1972 federal-territorial task force report on fisheries in the Northwest Territories recommended that "harvesting of fish for domestic purposes should take precedence over commercial or sports development".¹ The report goes on to state:

Present government policy is to ensure that native people in the North have the option of retaining their traditional way of life. This can only be a meaningful option if the fisheries resource remains available for domestic consumption.²

 Commercial Fisheries

The commercial fishery of the North consists of the harvest of fish for sale in local and southern markets, and a growing sport fishery. The important commercial species are arctic char, lake whitefish, lake trout, inconnu, pickerel, and northern pike. Commercial harvesting became reasonably well established in the late 1940s when the Great Slave Lake fishery prospered.⁴ At that time, catches of lake trout and whitefish from Great Slave Lake reached 4.5 million kg, making it the most productive lake in North America. This was followed by the development of other inland lake fisheries and a coastal char fishery, and by attempts to develop a fishery in the Mackenzie Delta.

By the early 1960s, the Great Slave Lake fishery was in considerable decline; today it supports only a whitefish harvest. Other projects were begun and abandoned because they failed to meet short-term financial criteria or satisfactory harvest levels, or because they were thought to endanger stocks . Through the 1970s and early 1980s, interest and activity in commercial harvesting waned. More recently, however, groundfish and shellfish projects have been launched in the Baffin and northern Quebec regions. As well, there is increased interest in the char fishery in both the Northwest Territories and northern Quebec.

 The sport fishery of Yukon, Northwest Territories, northern Quebec, and Labrador is part of a growing tourist industry. Although camps operated by non-native, southern interests have been active for many years, native entrepreneurs have recently undertaken new initiatives. The Labrador Inuit Development Corporation has purchased a resort facility and expects to be operating soon. Native businessmen in northern Quebec, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon are also pursuing such opportunities. Governments are optimistic that such efforts will contribute to local economies and that, with good management, sustained harvests will be possible.

Northern Discontent

 Northern fisheries have shown little stability ova time. As harvests and prices oscillated, so did the fortunes of individual projects and the fishermen involved. Interest dwindled, and it became easy for policy makers and department officials to retain their focus on the larger fisheries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Research programmes continued, but few involved northerners in any meaningful way or took into consideration local needs and aspirations.

 Ironically, as interest in northern fisheries waned, native land claims moved to the fore and, not unexpectedly, made important reference to fisheries. Northern frustration prompted demands for stepping up the pace of devolution. To many, the northern fisheries scene was one of drift and disregard. DFO, along with other agencies, rejected the opportunity offered by land claims negotiations and refused to be a signatory to the renewable resource sub-agreement of the Inuit of the Northwest Territories. Marine conservation efforts languished, though interest in offshore petroleum exploration continued. Discontent over the federal role in fisheries was widespread in the North.

DFO Workshop¾ 1985

 In recognition of these conditions and the need to address underlying problems, then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans John Fraser requested that CARC host a workshop in November 1985. Issues were to be identified. Options and priorities for policies and programmes were to be included in the recommendations to the minister. Representatives from northern communities, native organizations, the petroleum and mining industries, local, territorial and federal government agencies, and scientists and specialists were to participate. In spite of the fact that few DFO officials were permitted to attend under the acting fisheries minister, Erik Nielsen, the workshop met in a determined atmosphere and produced a number of significant recommendations with the full support of all participants.

 Three broad areas of discussion emerged in the workshop. The first centred on the general view that DFO paid too little attention to profound changes in the North and to southern Canada's relationship to the North. Constitutional, political, cultural, and economic change seemed not to be reflected in the work of the department. The second area of concern dealt with management of the northern fisheries. Matters of both substance and style were raised. The third area of concern related to DFO's scientific and research responsibilities. Of particular concern was the perceived lack of relevance of much of DFO's research for management purposes. In addition, there was frustration on the part of native participants, who felt that aboriginal knowledge was all but ignored in the department's bid to exercise absolute control over research.

 In May 1986, the workshop report was presented to the new minister, Tom Siddon.⁵ The discussion and recommendations contained in that report are summarized in the following sections.

 The Changing Northern Context

 In a North that is changing politically, economically, culturally, and administratively, it was considered essential that DFO reorient its views of the North and northern residents in some very fundamental ways. Perceived as aloof, unconcerned with residents' views, unsympathetic to industrial interests, and wary of shifting balances of power through land claims and devolution, the department came under fire for what participants regarded as major deficiencies.

 Accordingly, it was recommended that DFO should recognize aboriginal rights formally, as most other federal agencies had, that it should work with northern institutions to develop devolved and shared approaches to policy and management, that it should endorse and implement native wildlife agreements, and that it should serve as the lead agency in a co-operative process to formulate an arctic fisheries policy.

 Management of the Resource

 At the heart of the discussion on management was the notion of co-operative and shared approaches to decision making. Participants called for responsibility and authority to be realigned. They demanded that the department desist in its role as a distant and monolithic centre and take the lead in forging new management relationships that would give genuine powers to legitimate interests. Native northerners emphasized the need for DFO to recognize that aboriginal harvesting is not an incidental cultural remnant from the past, but a critical economic activity. Industry called on the department to adopt a forward-looking and anticipatory stance rather than a reactive and adversarial position.

 In view of these issues, the workshop recommended that DFO begin immediately to work with all key interests to devise and implement shared management and decision-making systems, and to support management regimes negotiated through land claims. It further recommended that DFO should pay particular attention to local co-operative management strategies based on the principle of sustainable development. Regulatory systems should be streamlined, with industry and communities playing important roles in the process. Anticipatory joint planning by both industry and DFO was suggested as one way to reduce the level of acrimony associated with particular projects. DFO participation in the various northern land-use planning programmes was strongly recommended so as to ensure that fisheries priorities would be reflected fairly in strategic plans.

 Science and Research

 DFO oversees an extensive research programme, and includes among its staff individuals acknowledged internationally as outstanding contributors to our knowledge about aquatic ecosystems. However, participants in CARC's workshop identified several problems with DFO's approach to research. Among the key concerns were:

• lack of relevance to the expressed needs of northerners;
• failure to acknowledge the importance of local knowledge-a shortcoming that has led to miscalculations and community distrust;
• lack of involvement on the part of northerners in all aspects of the research process; and
• lack of attention by DFO to disseminating its research findings and other information in ways which northern people can both understand and use in the management process.

 The Aftermath

 Responding to the recommendations of the workshop report in his letter of June 1987, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Tom Siddon stated:

The workshop report makes a number of useful recommendations with respect to how DFO's northern mandate might be fulfilled more effectively....In particular, I cite the recommendations relating to shared management, with participation from the local level in management/research decisions; harmonization of local, regional and national interests; balanced renewable/non-renewable resource development; and sustainable development.

It should be noted that DFO and Environment Canada, the two agencies that had refused to sign native claims wildlife agreements, have now become signatories. DFO's new willingness to co-operate with northerners, particularly native peoples, is expressed in a recent fisheries habitat policy document:

It is recognized that native peoples could assume a greater role in local fisheries management and environmental protection in the future. Through this policy Fisheries offers useful approaches for effective habitat conservation that could be implemented within the context of both Native claims and self-government. The Department is prepared to cooperate with Native groups and the appropriate provincial or territorial fisheries agencies to develop programs, techniques and approaches to improve fish habitat management within their areas of interest.⁶

Further evidence of change is seen in recent efforts to establish commercial operations for char, shrimp, scallops, halibut, and cod in the eastern Arctic. Though still just test fisheries, these initiatives (in which DFO, northern governments, and native organizations are cooperating) suggest a new orientation for the department.

Concluding Note

 In his letter to CARC, the minister noted that he could not accept the report's "overly negative analysis" of DFO's northern role; however, he added: "a comprehensive northern regime developed on the basis of a balanced workable framework can only be accomplished through the ongoing cooperation of all the parties involved and may require practical compromises to achieve the results espoused by workshop participants. I believe there is now a unique opportunity to implement the philosophy of these recommendations." It should be noted that the workshop participants were solidly in support of the report. Those in attendance represented all levels of government, the mining and petroleum industries, northern native organizations, and scientists and specialists. Had more department officials been permitted to attend, they would have been in a position to assure the minister that the recommendations were carefully developed and unanimously supported. Much remains to be accomplished. The forces of devolution, political development, land claims, and economic and social need necessitate new policies and programmes. A renewed sense of political will has led to some new approaches. The task now is to follow through on these initiatives, to pursue revitalized policies, to design new management regimes, and to do sound, applied research in which northerners' knowledge and experience is used effectively.

 Much hard work lies ahead. Much effort is needed. More political will on the part of federal and territorial politicians is required. The response of senior administrative personnel and programme officials will be critical. In his response to CARC, the minister noted that he would "be willing to meet with you to review the status of your recommendations, and their implementation, as appropriate, over the next year." Although CARC will certainly follow developments, it will, of course, be the northern peoples and their various political and public organizations who will most closely follow events. This process of review, renewal, and reform must not only benefit northerners, it must also include their active participation

Robert F. Keith is a professor of environment and resource studies at the University of Waterloo and Co-chairman of CARC.

 Terry Fenge is Director of Research, Tungavik Federation of Nunavat.

 Peter Jacobs is a professor in the Faculté de l'Aménagement, Université de Montréal.

 Shelagh Jane Woods is a researcher with the Department of Employment and Immigration.

Endnotes

l. Government of the Northwest Territories, Where to Now? Fisheries Development ~n the Northwest Territories, Report of a Federal-Territorial Task Force (Yellowknife, N.W.T.: Government of the Northwest Territories, 1972), sect. 1, p. 11.

2 .Ibid.

3 .Thomas R. Berger, Northern Frontier Northern Homeland, Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1977).

4. Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Economic Development and Tourism, A History of Commercial Fishing in the Northwest Territories, (Yellowknife, N.W.T., 1986)

5. "Toward a Northern Policy for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans", Report of a workshop sponsored by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and hosted by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Montebello, Quebec, November 1985.

6. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1986), p. 11.