Charlie
Well-Known Member
Yea, I know someone is probably going to yell this is in the wrong place, but it still has to do with saltwater and want to make sure no one misses IronNoggin’s post!
What if the Halibut Shoe was on the Other Foot?
While I'm complimented about thoroughness & research all the time, this my friends - takes the cake! Well put together, fantastic recap - Great Job Matt! I highly suggest reading that topic and links provided. I copied the links which makes it easier to track! These are a couple of examples of the information provided and in particular, I found very interesting!
LORNE NELS DA VID IVERSON
PLAINTIFF
AND:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS, and
PACIFIC HALIBUT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF B.C
DEFENDANTS
http://www.bcbusinesslawblog.com/EBL_DFO.pdf
This is very interesting!
THE CANADIAN SITUATION
Successive federal governments in Canada over the last two decades, generally, have regarded individual quota (IQ) systems with favor. The prevailing philosophy among key fisheries management staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, aided by staff turnover, appears to have been converted to one of support for IQ systems, preferably including transferability privileges (ITQs) (Copes 1998a, 1994). An individual quota system was used in Canada's Lake Winnipeg fishery as early as 1972, and an IQ regime for herring was introduced on Canada's Atlantic Coast in 1976 (Parsons 1993). Individual quota systems became the dominant management system on the country's Atlantic Coast during the 1980s, either as regular ITQ or other IQ systems. But the management results have given little reason for confidence in these systems. The major stocks are those for groundfish, which for the first time in history reached utter collapse in 1992. The fishery on cod and other groundfish species was then closed. With minor exceptions they remain closed today as stock rebuilding has been a very slow process. The stock collapse came after a decade of widespread use of ITQ and IQ systems, with incontrovertible evidence of serious levels of quota busting, high-grading, by-catch waste and data fouling, much of it acknowledged by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Copes 1992). It may also be noted, incidentally, that Iceland's highly important cod stocks in the 1990s reached their lowest levels ever&again after about a decade of ITQ fishing (Hannesson 1996).
Fortunately, the decline of the groundfish stocks brought with it a large increase in the crab stocks, allowing the Atlantic crab fishery to flourish. However, crab was also managed by an individual quota regime, which was subject to the usual problems of high-grading, quota busting, etc. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently announced that crab stocks are showing signs of serious stock declines. The ITQ history may be repeating itself once more!
In several areas on both east and west coasts of the country there is strong resistance to quota systems, particularly in smaller coastal communities that have banded together in Coastal Community Networks. As a concession, the government now, in a few cases, is arranging community allocations (quotas) under comanagement arrangements with local provisions for resource stewardship.
In Canada's independent-minded Senate, the Standing Committee on Fisheries (1998) has worked diligently for years to explore social conditions in Canada's fisheries and recently brought out a report, Privatization and Quota Licensing in Canada's Fisheries, containing a critical assessment of IQ impacts. Following are two of the noteworthy recommendations in the report:
5. The Committee urges the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to more thoroughly consider the long-term social and economic effects of individual quota licences, especially those that are transferable, on Canada's coastal communities, Aboriginal and other, and not extend the individual quota regime until the needs of coastal communities, Aboriginal and other, have been fully assessed.
10. The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stop using the examples of individual quota management systems in New Zealand and Iceland until the Department has taken full account of the criticisms of individual quotas emanating from those countries.
The Federal Court of Canada (1996) has dealt with contestation of ITQ regulations on equity grounds, but this was concerned with allocation internal to an ITQ system, rather than with challenges to the system itself (R. v. Carpenter). While the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, the judgement was overturned on appeal on technical grounds. Interestingly, the case itself evolved around striking evidence of manipulation by key personnel of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to secure majority support from the industry for the establishment of an ITQ system.
The Supreme Court of Canada also has made historically important rulings on fisheries matters. In a 1990 landmark decision (R. v. Sparrow) the Court ruled that the constitutionally protected rights of Aboriginal people in Canada required the federal government to allow them improved access to fishery resources. The Court based its judgement in large part on historical usage of, and continued dependence upon, such resources by Aboriginal communities. This brings to mind the current agitation in Canadian coastal communities, through formally organized Coastal Community Networks, for recognition of their rights to local resources upon which they have long depended. Transferability of quotas and licences has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to use their superior financial resources to capture an increasing share of fishery access rights, which may be used to divert fish catches to their centrally located operations. Can a legal case be made to protect communities against such alienation of their historical resource base (Copes 1998b)? Interestingly, this question appears to have occurred to a Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court. In a 1996 case of the Court bearing on Aboriginal fishing rights (R. v Gladstone), Chief Justice Lamer, before his recent retirement, mused on possible extension of the principles supporting Aboriginal fishing rights, referring to concomitant objectives "... such as economic and regional fairness, and the recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-aboriginal groups ...."
More directly comparable to the recent Icelandic development could be an appeal by individual citizens in Canada who claim to be disadvantaged by ITQ provisions. The Icelandic Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds that he had suffered discrimination and that his "right to work" in the fishery had been infringed. The constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada has a strong non-discrimination clause that offers individuals "... the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...." Certainly, the case can be made that in Canada, as in Iceland, ITQ provisions have discriminated in favor of particular groups in the fishery, allowing them substantial wealth benefits from the public fishery resource, at the expense of others. In fact two relevant court cases, seeking relief from discrimination in access allocations have been launched in the province of Nova Scotia, on Canada's east coast, though one of these has been abandoned for lack of funding.
Again, GREAT JOB - Matt!
What if the Halibut Shoe was on the Other Foot?
While I'm complimented about thoroughness & research all the time, this my friends - takes the cake! Well put together, fantastic recap - Great Job Matt! I highly suggest reading that topic and links provided. I copied the links which makes it easier to track! These are a couple of examples of the information provided and in particular, I found very interesting!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:LORNE NELS DA VID IVERSON
PLAINTIFF
AND:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS, and
PACIFIC HALIBUT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF B.C
DEFENDANTS
http://www.bcbusinesslawblog.com/EBL_DFO.pdf
This is very interesting!
Challenging ITQs:
Legal and Political Action in Iceland, Canada and Latin America
A Preliminary Overview
By Parzival Copes and Gísli Pálsson
Legal and Political Action in Iceland, Canada and Latin America
A Preliminary Overview
By Parzival Copes and Gísli Pálsson
THE CANADIAN SITUATION
Successive federal governments in Canada over the last two decades, generally, have regarded individual quota (IQ) systems with favor. The prevailing philosophy among key fisheries management staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, aided by staff turnover, appears to have been converted to one of support for IQ systems, preferably including transferability privileges (ITQs) (Copes 1998a, 1994). An individual quota system was used in Canada's Lake Winnipeg fishery as early as 1972, and an IQ regime for herring was introduced on Canada's Atlantic Coast in 1976 (Parsons 1993). Individual quota systems became the dominant management system on the country's Atlantic Coast during the 1980s, either as regular ITQ or other IQ systems. But the management results have given little reason for confidence in these systems. The major stocks are those for groundfish, which for the first time in history reached utter collapse in 1992. The fishery on cod and other groundfish species was then closed. With minor exceptions they remain closed today as stock rebuilding has been a very slow process. The stock collapse came after a decade of widespread use of ITQ and IQ systems, with incontrovertible evidence of serious levels of quota busting, high-grading, by-catch waste and data fouling, much of it acknowledged by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Copes 1992). It may also be noted, incidentally, that Iceland's highly important cod stocks in the 1990s reached their lowest levels ever&again after about a decade of ITQ fishing (Hannesson 1996).
Fortunately, the decline of the groundfish stocks brought with it a large increase in the crab stocks, allowing the Atlantic crab fishery to flourish. However, crab was also managed by an individual quota regime, which was subject to the usual problems of high-grading, quota busting, etc. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently announced that crab stocks are showing signs of serious stock declines. The ITQ history may be repeating itself once more!
In several areas on both east and west coasts of the country there is strong resistance to quota systems, particularly in smaller coastal communities that have banded together in Coastal Community Networks. As a concession, the government now, in a few cases, is arranging community allocations (quotas) under comanagement arrangements with local provisions for resource stewardship.
In Canada's independent-minded Senate, the Standing Committee on Fisheries (1998) has worked diligently for years to explore social conditions in Canada's fisheries and recently brought out a report, Privatization and Quota Licensing in Canada's Fisheries, containing a critical assessment of IQ impacts. Following are two of the noteworthy recommendations in the report:
5. The Committee urges the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to more thoroughly consider the long-term social and economic effects of individual quota licences, especially those that are transferable, on Canada's coastal communities, Aboriginal and other, and not extend the individual quota regime until the needs of coastal communities, Aboriginal and other, have been fully assessed.
10. The Committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stop using the examples of individual quota management systems in New Zealand and Iceland until the Department has taken full account of the criticisms of individual quotas emanating from those countries.
The Federal Court of Canada (1996) has dealt with contestation of ITQ regulations on equity grounds, but this was concerned with allocation internal to an ITQ system, rather than with challenges to the system itself (R. v. Carpenter). While the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, the judgement was overturned on appeal on technical grounds. Interestingly, the case itself evolved around striking evidence of manipulation by key personnel of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to secure majority support from the industry for the establishment of an ITQ system.
The Supreme Court of Canada also has made historically important rulings on fisheries matters. In a 1990 landmark decision (R. v. Sparrow) the Court ruled that the constitutionally protected rights of Aboriginal people in Canada required the federal government to allow them improved access to fishery resources. The Court based its judgement in large part on historical usage of, and continued dependence upon, such resources by Aboriginal communities. This brings to mind the current agitation in Canadian coastal communities, through formally organized Coastal Community Networks, for recognition of their rights to local resources upon which they have long depended. Transferability of quotas and licences has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to use their superior financial resources to capture an increasing share of fishery access rights, which may be used to divert fish catches to their centrally located operations. Can a legal case be made to protect communities against such alienation of their historical resource base (Copes 1998b)? Interestingly, this question appears to have occurred to a Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court. In a 1996 case of the Court bearing on Aboriginal fishing rights (R. v Gladstone), Chief Justice Lamer, before his recent retirement, mused on possible extension of the principles supporting Aboriginal fishing rights, referring to concomitant objectives "... such as economic and regional fairness, and the recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-aboriginal groups ...."
More directly comparable to the recent Icelandic development could be an appeal by individual citizens in Canada who claim to be disadvantaged by ITQ provisions. The Icelandic Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds that he had suffered discrimination and that his "right to work" in the fishery had been infringed. The constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada has a strong non-discrimination clause that offers individuals "... the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...." Certainly, the case can be made that in Canada, as in Iceland, ITQ provisions have discriminated in favor of particular groups in the fishery, allowing them substantial wealth benefits from the public fishery resource, at the expense of others. In fact two relevant court cases, seeking relief from discrimination in access allocations have been launched in the province of Nova Scotia, on Canada's east coast, though one of these has been abandoned for lack of funding.
Again, GREAT JOB - Matt!
Last edited by a moderator:
