A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED

“CANADIAN HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIESFOUNDATION”

Prepared for:

BC Tuna Fishermen’s AssociationPO BOX 372,

Shawnigan Lake, BCCANADA V0R 2W0

MAY, 2002

A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED

CANADIAN HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIESFOUNDATION

-i-

PREFACE

This document “A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED--CANADIAN HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES FOUNDATION”

was prepared for the Board of Director’s and Members of the BC TunaFishermen’s Association of Shawnigan Lake, British Columbia by IEC

INTERNATIONAL Collaborative Marine Research and Development Ltd.

Respectfully submitted,

W. E. Lorne Clayton, RPBio.President/Research Director

INTERNATIONALCollaborative Marine Research And Development Ltd.48729 Maplegrove StreetVictoria, British ColumbiaCANADA V8Y 3B9Phone 250-658-0179Fax 250-658-4709Email clayton@ieccorporate.comWeb Site http://www.ieccorporate.com

-ii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with appreciation that I acknowledge the following persons who providedbackground information, and insight, which contributed to the preparation of thisreport.

A.W. (Sandy) ArgueSenior Policy AdvisorBC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries780 Blanshard StreetPO Box 9359 STN PROV GOVTVictoria, BC V8W 9M2Ph 250 356-7015Fx 250 356-5099E-mail Sandy.Argue@gems2.gov.bc.ca

Mr. Gregg HolmVice-PresidentBC Tuna Fishermen’s AssociationP.O. Box 372Shawnigan Lake, BCCanada V0R 2W0Ph 250-742-5002Fx 250-743-1139E-mail gaholm@shaw.ca

Mr. William ShawSouth Coast Division3225 Stephenson Point RoadNanaimo, B.C. V9T 1K3Phone: 250-756-7152Fax: 250-756-7162E-mail shawb@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

-iii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cont.

Mr. Dave SmithSeafood Development OfficerBC Ministry Of Agriculture, Food And FisheriesSeafood Development Branch2nd Floor, 780 BlanshardP.O. Box 9359Stn. Prov. Govt.Victoria, BC V8W 9M2Ph 250-356-7642Fx 250-356-0358E-mail Dave.Smith@gems6.gov.bc.ca

Mr. Larry TeaguePresidentBC Tuna Fishermen’s AssociationP.O. Box 372Shawnigan Lake, BCCanada V0R 2W0Ph 250-742-5002Fx 250-743-1139E-mail bctfa@shaw.ca

Mrs. Linda TeagueSecretaryBC Tuna Fishermen’s AssociationP.O. Box 372Shawnigan Lake, BCCanada V0R 2W0Ph 250-742-5002Fx 250-743-1139E-mail bctfa@shaw.ca

Collectively the Director’s of the BCTFA who provided valued comments on draftmaterial.

L. Clayton

- iv-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ………………………………………………………………………. -i-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………… -ii-TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………… -iv-

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………. 1

The BC Tuna Industry………………………………………………….. 1Sustainability of the Fishery……………………………………………. 2

IDENTIFIED QUESTIONS……………………………………………………. 4

What are the pro and cons of forming the Canadian Highly MigratorySpecies Foundation (CHMSF) ? ……………….……………………… 4

What should be the mandate and objectives of the proposed CanadianHighly Migratory Species Foundation (CHMSF)? ……..……….. 7

How should it be structured? ………………………………………….. 9

What should be the size of the Board, its make up, boardmember qualifications and membership duration? ………………….. 10

Linkages? ………………………………………………………………. 13

Are paid positions needed? ……………………………………………… 15

What should its association be to the British Columbia TunaFisherman’s Association (BCTFA)? …………..……………………… 16

How could the proposed Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation (CHMSF) be funded? ……………………………………. 17

Could it be structured and operated much the same way as theAmerican Fishermen’s Research Foundation (AFRF) or the BCSalmon Marketing Board? ………………………..……………………. 24

Who should the Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation(CHMSF) be responsible to, report to, if anyone? ………………….… 25

Would the British Columbia Tuna Fishermen’s Association (BCTFA) be entitled to an administrative fee? ………..…………….. 26

Are there any legal issues that need to be accounted for? ……………. 27

What, if any, relation should exist between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation? …. 28

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………… 29

PERTINENT REFERENCES MATERIAL …………………………………… 31

1

INTRODUCTION

The BC Tuna Industry

The albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) forms the basis of a considerable fishery in thewaters of the North Pacific with harvests by British Columbia (Canadian) fishermenreaching approximately 5,000 metric tonnes in 2001 representing a value ofapproximately $25 million (Shaw, Pers. Com 2002).

A highly migratory species, the albacore ranges throughout portions of the Northern andSouthern Pacific and is fished by many nations. Canadian fishermen currently catch justover 3 % of the total North Pacific harvest. As Tuna populations are far ranging,Canadian fishermen undertake fishing activities in international waters under theprovisions of various conventions and agreements including: the UN ImplementationAgreement for the Straddling Fish Stocks and the Highly Migratory Species Agreementunder the law of the Sea convention; the FAO Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries, the International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Management of FishingCapacity; and, the UN Compliance Agreement.

Canadian fishermen also have privileges to fish for and land species of highly migratoryTuna within the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as part of a reciprocal arrangementagreed to under the 1981 Treaty Between the Government of Canada and theGovernment of the United States of America on Pacific Albacore Tuna Vessels and PortPrivileges i.e. the Canada – US Albacore Tuna Treaty of 1981.

In British Columbia, all commercial fishing licensed vessels are authorized to participatein the fishery, as Albacore Tuna is a Schedule II species listed under the Pacific FisheryRegulations, 1993. Those vessels not eligible to fish for Tuna under Sect 19 (1) of theRegulations may be authorized, by a license issued pursuant to section 68 of the Fishery(General Regulations), to fish outside Canadian waters.

An excellent series of articles, and discussion papers detail the history, current status andfuture directions of the Tuna fishery including:

Status of the 1972 British Columbia Albacore Fishery 2002 Tuna Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Economic Potential for Offshore Highly Migratory Species Final Report- Preliminary Analysis of the Value-added

Opportunities for Albacore Tuna and Seafood Products The BC Tuna Industry ~ Planning for the Future.

Complete references to these documents, and others, may be found in the Referencesection of this paper.

2

Sustainability of the Fishery

The future of the global Tuna fishery, as all fisheries, is based upon responsible andsustainable management and fishing practices. There are a number of internationalorganizations whose mandate addresses the conservation and management of highlymigratory fish stocks throughout the Pacific Ocean. Canada is a participant in a numberof these bodies (e.g. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Secretariat of thePacific Community, North Pacific Albacore Workshop, Interim Scientific Committee).”

In order to address issues surrounding the sustainability of the Albacore Tuna fishery inthe Eastern Pacific, members of the US industry formed the American Fishermen’sResearch Foundation (AFRF) in 1971. Since its inception, a number of Canadian tunafishermen, through their membership in the Western Fishboat Owners Association(WFOA), have contributed directly to AFRF scientific research programs, such asAlbacore tagging and sea surface temperature research programs, that generate datanecessary to support a sustainable fishery.

In British Columbia, specifically, in order to better promote, develop and safeguard theinterests of the BC tuna industry, and its participants, the BC Tuna Fishermen’sAssociation (BCTFA) was formed in 2000. Over 145 members of the BCTFA currentlywork cooperatively toward the development and sustainability of the BC Tuna Industry.

In order to better represent the interests of BC Fishermen and to provide a greatercontribution toward the areas of research, development and policy issues, The Board ofDirectors of the BCTFA is considering the formation of a Canadian Highly MigratorySpecies Foundation (CHMSF). It is envisioned that such a foundation would haveconsiderable opportunity to contribute to the sustainability and development of highlymigratory species such as Albacore Tuna, and other species of interest i.e. Skipjack Tuna,Opah, Yellowfin Tuna, Bigeye Tuna, Swordfish, Pomfret, etc. It is expected that such aCanadian based Foundation would raise the awareness of the BC industry, and workcollaboratively and jointly with AFRF and other international foundations, in supportingthe development of appropriate science based research projects to the benefit of fishstocks and industry development. Such research would provide the data necessary tosupport decisions on management of the fishery.

In addition, to science based research the Foundation would be expected to address otherissues of benefit to industry including such areas as:

♦ Bycatch♦ Product quality♦ Marketing, etc.♦ Industry data collection, compilation and analysis♦ International representation, treat obligations

3

♦ Industry development

To fully address this issue the Board of Directors of the BCTFA have contracted IECINTERNATIONAL to evaluate and provide comprehensive advice to the Associationregarding the formation of a Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation. In order toaddress those issues identified as significant to the Board, specific questions wereprovided as follows:

• What are the pros and cons of forming the CHMSF?, and,• What should be the CHMSF’s objectives and mandate?• How should it be structured?• What should be the size of the Board, its make up, board

member qualifications and membership duration?• Are paid position needed?• What should its association be to the BCTFA?• How could the CHMSF be funded?• Could it be structured and operated much the same way as the

"AFRF" or the BC Salmon Marketing Board?• Who should the CHMSF be responsible to, report to, if anyone?• Would the BCTFA be entitled to an administrative fee?• Are there any legal issues that need to be accounted for?• What, if any, relation should exist between DFO and CHMSF?

This document summarises the response and addresses the specific questions identifiedby the BCTFA.

4

WHAT ARE THE PRO AND CONS OF FORMING THECHMSF ?

Historically, in British Columbia, the investigation and development of new fisheries wasundertaken as a joint partnership between industry, Federal and Provincial governments.The reality is, in today’s political and economic climate, that industry must take the leadon any development of fisheries with economic potential. Once industry members havegathered their energies and commit to significant development, assistance is then oftensecured to further promote development.

Keeping in mind that the primary mandate of Canadian Department of Fisheries isconservation and that commercial interest is, perhaps, 4th or 5th on their list of priorities,the further development or expansion of existing or new fisheries is far down on their list.Provincial assistance and support, is today, more directly tied to commercialdevelopment.

With the attention of current industry members focused on efforts surrounding the re-negotiation of the US-CAN Tuna Treaty, there is, perhaps, little attention being directedtoward the issue of scientific research and industry development.

It is, however, the opinion of the author that for there to be any significant positivemovement in the development and/or sustainability of the Albacore Tuna industry

or the evaluation and eventual development of any new fisheries for highlymigratory species, the formation of a Foundation is mandatory. This is regardless

whether the current treaty is extended, revised or cancelled.

The following is an evaluation of both Pros and Cons related to the proposed formationof a Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation.

PRO

Formation of a Federal Registered Not-For-Profit Foundation:

will succeed with the support and commitment by the majority ofBC industry (Fishermen/Buyers);

can be expected to provide a national/international profile to theTuna/Highly Migratory Species issue, raising awareness of theimportance of the industry;

5

can be expected to be a vehicle that allows for the leveraging ofindustry funds to attain expanded levels of research anddevelopment;

in collaboration and cooperation with AFRF, and other similarfoundations, can result in expanded research opportunitiesthorough increased levels of funding;

will bring together industry, government, scientists, and educatorsin a non-political collaboration working in the best interests ofhighly migratory species;

can be expected to promote international communication betweenlike-minded Foundations giving Canadian Tuna Fishermen apositive and expanded international profile;

would promote the development of British Colombia and Canadianscientific expertise through direct involvement of students, andscientists;

would be expected to generate commercial and scientific spin offbenefits - such as development and testing of new technologies andan overall increased understanding of oceanographic and perhapsclimate affects on fish stocks;

would identify BC Industry members as a contributor tointernationally recognized research;

will allow industry to direct and participate in research and identifywhat species work should be carried out on;

by specifically being identified as the vehicle through whichBC/Canadian Tuna fishermen contribute funds and expertise tosupport international level research on Tuna and other species, theCHMSF would be expected to give Canadianfishermen/government a greater strength when negotiating futuretreaty or other agreements;

will allow BC industry to specifically direct resources to study anddevelop opportunities for the further development of Tuna andother highly migratory species, within the Canadian EEZ. Thisapproach is expected to protect the interests of BC industrymembers should future negotiations result in the collapse ofinternational treaty agreements; and,

6

CONS

The Formation of a Federal Registered Not-For-Profit Foundation:

will not succeed without the support and commitment by themajority of BC industry (Fishermen/Buyers)

may initially generate hard feelings between Canadian industry andUS as Canadians may withdraw support for Western FishboatOwner’s Association (WFOA);

collapse of such a Foundation (due to withdrawal of support) mayput industry in a weaker position than they are in currently;

will require expanded role (time and fund commitment) of industrymembers to ensure forward development;

future reduction in number of active fishermen may reducecontributions for Foundation support; and,

will require additional negotiation and support of DFO inestablishing internal support mechanisms (Log Book Programs,etc.)

7

WHAT SHOULD BE THE CHMSF’S OBJECTIVES ANDMANDATE ?

So as to maintain an appropriate focus i.e. research on highlymigratory fish species;

So as to maintain a forum independent of political involvement;and,

So as not to interfere with the business of existing industryAssociation’s and groups:

It is advised that:

The Foundation be a non-political entity. Issues of politics,management, licensing, treaty, etc. should be the purview ofexisting or future industry Association's such as the BC TunaFishermen’s Association (BCTFA).

The purpose of the Foundation would be to provide the scientificinformation required by industry, such as BCTFA, and all levels ofdecision makers allowing them to make appropriate decisions andfacilitate negotiations on issues of politics, management, etc.

In this regard it is recommended that the mandate and objectives for such a Foundationshould, at least, include statements similar to the following:

Mission Statement: To provide a sound scientificbasis for conservation, sustainability andeducation related to highly migratory marine fishspecies in the Pacific and other oceans of theworld by the promotion and funding of appliedresearch activities.

The foundation seeks to fulfill its mission by the following objectives:

supporting the UN/Canadian Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFishing;

supporting the mandatory collection of log book data for allfisheries of highly migratory species;

8

encouraging in its peer-reviewed funding a focus on issues ofimportance for decision makers;

encouraging the regular sharing and distribution of research resultsbetween scientists, industry and decision makers;

working in collaboration with other research organizations andfoundations to increase their ability to acquire, appraise, adapt andapply research to improve the knowledge base and management ofhighly migratory stocks;

developing relationships with partners and co-sponsors whouphold the Foundation’s goal to synthesize research andexperience with respect to highly migratory fish species;

encouraging the funding of additional research to expand theknowledge base for additional species; and,

promoting research for the benefit of highly migratory species andthe development of sustainable economic fishing opportunities.

The Foundation achieves its objectives by:

providing a recognized forum for the funding and undertaking ofresearch to advance knowledge pertaining to albacore tuna andother highly migratory fish species;

supporting the synthesis and dissemination of research results; and

recognizing excellence and achievement.

HOW SHOULD A CHMSF BE STRUCTURED ?

It is appropriate in the development of such a Foundation that industry members supportand direct the activities to the betterment of the industry.

Based on this premise a recommended structure for the Foundation follows:

CANADIAN HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES FOUNDATION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS(INDUSTRY- ELECTED)(SCIENCE-HONORARY)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RESEARCHCOMMITTEE

FUNDING-PARTNERSHIP-PROMOTIONSCOMMITTEE

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT

AFRFAmerican Fishermen’sResearch Foundation

TRCCTuna Research andConservation Center

MHLCMulti High Level

Conference ..Highly Migratory

LINKAGES

IATTCInter-AmericanTropical TunaCommission

9

Fish Stocks

OTHER

10

SIZE OF BOARD, MAKE UP, QUALIFICATIONS ANDMEMBERSHIP DURATION?

Board of Directors13 voting positions

Up to 7 Members of the BC Tuna Fishermen’sAssociation (BCTFA)

Up to 6 British Columbia- CanadianProcessors/Buyers

Up to 8* Advisors to the Board – non voting

* it is appropriate to set an upper level- not all advisory position are required to be filled.

Executive DirectorThe executive director's office maintains the overall vision for the foundation, develops

external relations and supports the Board of Directors and its committees.

Committees(Executive Director/ Board Members and Advisors)

Research Committee Partnership/Funding/Promotions Committee Identifies Research Topics Identify Collaborative Partners/Partnerships Prioritizes Research Projects/ Secures & Identifies Funding Vets Publications Prior to release Foundation Promotion

Administrative Support Responsible for the coordination of the different administrative

activities of the foundation

Ensure the efficient and systematic delivery of administrativesupport services.

(Personnel, supply records, etc.)

11

Knowledge transfer

Scientific Support Responsible for the collection and analysis of log data

Provides statistical, technical and field support to Foundation.

Advisors Appointed/Volunteer Advisors representing science (DFO/MAFF),

International Associations/Foundations

Membership

Board Members: Eligibility for Election to Board of Directors = Active

Fishermen or Processor/Buyer

Duration of Directorship - 2 years

Membership in the Foundation: Membership in the Foundation to be limited to those interested

in furthering the objectives of the foundation.

There are three types of members:

1) Ordinary Members: Individuals or Associations

Member Share – one time $5.00 representing Share Value

Membership Fee – may be instituted by Board of Directors asdetermined by a majority vote of members at the AGM.

Ordinary members must support the Bylaws of the Foundation.

12

2) Sustaining Members:

The sustaining members of the foundation areindividuals or organizations that have been instrumental inarranging significant long-term financial support of the foundation andwho are approved for sustaining membership status by the Board ofDirectors.

3) Honorary Members:

Honorary members are individuals who are consideredto have contributed significantly to the objectives of the foundationand who are approved for honorary membership by the trustees.

(The appropriate information and forms required to submit a formal application for the initiation of aFederally Registered Not-For-Profit Research Foundation may be found in

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/corpdir/engdoc

13

LINKAGES ?

In order to maintain an optimal profile and to support the necessary relationships thatpromote collaborative research activities, it is appropriate to establish various linkageswith existing or future institutions. Some institutions that may be considered valuable tolink with include:

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), establishedby the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention in 1950, was the firstinternational organization dealing with tuna fisheries. It is responsiblefor the conservation and management of fisheries for tuna and otherspecies taken by tuna-fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean.While the current convention text does not contain a convention area,the IATTC conservation and management regimes cover the areabetween the western coastline of the Americas and 150° W longitude,from latitudes 40° N and 40° S.

c/o Scripps Institution of Oceanography 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive,La Jolla California 92037-1508 United States Contact: Dr. William H.Bayliff, Senior Scientist Telephone: +1 619 546 7100, ext. 301Telefax: +1 619 546 7133 Telex: 697 115

Multi High Level Conference (MHLC)

Multilateral High-Level Conference on the Conservation andManagement of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western andCentral Pacific.

American Fishermen’s Research Foundation (AFRF)

Western Fishboat Owner’s Association (WFOA)

Tuna Research and Conservation Center

A joint collaboration between Stanford University's Hopkins MarineStation and The Monterey Bay Aquarium.

UN-FAO

Eco-Trust

14

UBC Fisheries Innovation Center

Memorial University's Marine Institute - Newfoundland

Vancouver Aquarium

15

♦ ARE PAID POSITION NEEDED ?

Yes. Everyone is aware of the time contributions required by those persons involved involuntary Associations. It is the author’s experience that Associations that have a mostlypolitical focus (license, etc.) are able to function at a moderate level given the generouscontribution of time and resources of their members.

Once the focus of the Association expands beyond political and into the issues of science,management, etc. it is appropriate to have, at least a part time, Executive Director. Thisachieves a number of benefits: - It frees up industry member’s time; and, allows industrymembers to contribute and focus their energies on issues, which their expertise qualifiesthem to address.

Some examples of local industry Associations in BC that have paid Directors include:

Sablefish-Full Time Halibut-Full Time Geoduck- UHA-Full Time Shrimp- PCSCA-Part Time BC Salmon Marketing Council – Full Time BC Shellfish Growers Association – Full Time

Research foundations on the other hand are usually a-political. It is very difficult toachieve significant time contribution from industry members toward Associationactivities that are not politically beneficial.

In addition, a foundation that collects and expends significant funds on behalf of industryand other contributors (government, etc) has significant obligation to keep membersinformed, ensure bookkeeping, tax, and other tasks are undertaken. It is advised that aninternational level Foundation should have at least a part time paid Executive Director.

The CHMSF could be expected, to eventually, have a full time Executive Director.Remuneration for someone in this position based on other examples from BC might beexpected to earn between $50,000-$80,000 per annum depending on qualifications,experiences, etc.

In many cases, one function of the Executive Director is to leverage external funds,which, in part, cover remuneration of the Director’s position. This could be achievedthrough actively looking for funding opportunities.

16

WHAT SHOULD IT’S ASSOCIATION BE TO THE BCTFA ?

As the BCTFA is the leading Tuna Association in British Columbia, and it represents asignificant portion of the active Tuna fleet, it would be most beneficial if the BCTFA wasdirectly and significantly involved in the Management of the Foundation.

Such input is assumed in this case and this may be achieved through various mechanisms.

1) Board Of Director Structure:

The recommended structure of the Board of Directors gives weight tothe members of the BCTFA. As buyers/processors are a significantand integral part of the industry it is proposed that equal weight begiven on the Board to Association Members and Buyers. To allowfor differing views and opinions, it is important to make available aposition to those who do not necessarily belong to the BCTFA, butperhaps represent another Tuna Association or Association pertainingto other highly migratory fish species.

The make-up of the Board may be changed at an annual general, orspecial, meeting of the Foundation. Adjustments can be made on anannual basis if required to reflect changes in the industry.

17

HOW COULD THE CHMSF BE FUNDED ?

To maintain the profile and good works of such a Foundation it is crucial for it to beproperly funded. Appropriate levels of base funding will often also allow the leveragingof these funds through government or other programs which maximize industrycontributions. Failure to have adequate base funding for a foundation will result in itscollapse within a very short period.

As an industry based foundation, it is important that industry members support the basefunding through which the Foundation is maintained. Funding is often achieved throughthe following means.

Industry- Direct through Membership Fees:

Membership fees are one method to achieve base funding. This isa valuable approach for groups that have large membershippotential. Groups like BC Federation of Naturalists, Greenpeace,Sierra Club, for example with thousand of potential members areoften funded this way. The smaller the membership base the moredifficult it is to maintain such a Foundation. An industry that hasthe potential for 100-200 members would have to charge $300-$500 or more to achieve any base line for such a foundation. Thisis not a viable approach for the proposed CHMSF.

Industry- Direct through Management Fees:

In those fisheries that have a specific license e.g. Sablefish, andHalibut, there are requirements, as a condition of license, toprovide funds to undertake management of that fishery. Thesefunds are often collected voluntarily by an industry Associationbased on some criteria developed by industry. Such monies mayfund services such as catch monitoring, observer coverage, etc.Except for cases where there is limited entry, IVQ, and/or is asignificant industry (Sablefish, Halibut, Geoduck) this approachwould provides few funds for additional research.

Industry- Indirect through Log Book Program:

In fully licensed fisheries Logbooks are generally a condition oflicense, which provides for the collection of baseline fishing dataand which assists industry and government in the management ofthe fishery. Assuming that industry members agree to contributeto the BCTFA and the Foundation through a Logbook program, itis possible for the Foundation to undertake negotiations with DFO

18

to provide a Log Book- supply, recovery and analysis as a serviceto industry. In this scenario rather than paying a third party toprovide this service, the Foundation could undertake the work andcharge an applicable fee for service, which would provide the basefunding for the Foundation while addressing the Logbookrequirement. It would be appropriate for the Foundation to hire anexternal consultant or administrator to undertake such analysis soas to free up the time of the Exec. Director to enable that person tofocus on Foundation development.

As an example the following graph suggests the amount of fundsavailable to a foundation based on three levels ($1,000 - $1,500 -$2,000) of Logbook Fees for a range of vessel participants.

Figure 1. Potential Funds Generated through Internal Logbook Program

19

Should it be determined that Logbook fees are an appropriatevehicle for funding a baseline supporting funds for such afoundation, the cost of Logbook printing, distribution, data,analysis and reporting must be considered.

Industry- Indirect through Tonnage Fee:

Currently certain members of the Tuna fishing industry and somebuyers participate in the payment of a levy based on tonnage ofTuna landed. These funds directed through the Western FishboatOwner’s Association to the American Fishermen’s ResearchFoundation are used to fund Tuna related research on behalf of itsmembers. The incorporation of a Canadian equivalent to theAFRF using the same levy principle could provide significantresources for research that would directly benefit and beacknowledged as a contribution from Canadian fishermen.

The current levy of US$20 or ~CDN $33* per ton of Tuna landedby Canadian fishermen results in a significant contribution toAFRF. (*Based on an exchange rate of 1.65).

An equal contribution to a Canadian based foundation wouldcontribute up to $165,000 to the annual Activities of theFoundation based on 2001 harvest. A visual representation of thepotential level of funds that could be generated through a BC Levyon Tuna Landings based on tonnage is presented in Figure 2.Following:

20

Figure 2. Potential Funds Generated through Levy on TunaLandings based on tonnage. (PINK – Current level of Levy

through WFOA)

Government Programs

While funding programs through government contribution hasbecome increasing more difficult over the past number of yearsthere exist various avenues through which a Foundation couldachieve significant leveraging of internal funds to carry outresearch. In addition to recognized Provincial and FederalPrograms that often provide research funding based on various

21

application protocols the following have been identified asprograms that may provide funds to directly support either theproposed foundation or ongoing research on highly migratoryspecies.

Western Economic Partnership Agreement (WEPA) - BC

The Western Economic Partnership Agreement (WEPA) in BritishColumbia promotes economic growth and employmentopportunities as well as providing a mechanism for achievinggreater federal-provincial cooperation in the area of economic andregional development. Funding Assistance is available to eligibleprojects that: promote economic growth in BC; strengthen theperformance of new growth industries and other sectors throughnew technologies, products and markets; extend the internationalcompetitiveness of the BC economy; and, provide economicdevelopment opportunities for individual communities.

Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)

Established as an independent corporation by the Government ofCanada in 1997, the CFI invests in infrastructure projects tosupport research excellence and strengthen research training atuniversities, colleges, hospitals and not-for-profit researchinstitutions across Canada.

CFI funding covers 40 percent of the eligible costs of projects,with the remaining 60 percent coming from the researchinstitutions and their funding partners, which include the provincesand other levels of government, as well as the private andvoluntary sectors. To date, the CFI has been entrusted with acapital investment of $3.15 billion from the Government ofCanada.

http://www.innovation.ca

Opportunities for Business Through the Canadian - NationalScience and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

NSERC helps Canadian companies compete in today's economyby jointly funding collaborative R&D projects with scientists andengineers in universities across the country.

22

NSERC cost-shared programs are flexible and responsive and theymake business sense, as they:

• stretch research dollars;• promote linkages with skilled and knowledgeable people;• deliver creative ideas and practical solutions;• promote long-term partnerships; and• provide access to specialized facilities and equipment.

Financial Assistance for R&D Activities

Cost-shared financing of research and pre-competitivedevelopment technical projects is available through IndustrialResearch Assistance Programs (IRAP), upon assessment ofsubmitted proposal through a Technology Advisor.

IRAP supports 2 types of Research & Development financialassistance:

• Smaller Scale ProjectsThese projects are often preliminary in nature and funding isavailable for up to 40-50% of eligible project costs, dependingon the province and the project (e.g. costs associated withlabour, travel, sub-contracting and consultant fees).Contributions of these smaller scale projects are limited to amaximum of $15,000.

• Larger Scale ProjectsThese projects are often substantive in nature and eligible forsupport to levels up to $350,000.

Science Council of British Columbia

The Science Council is a publicly funded, not for profit provincialCrown agency. Its mission is to promote economic development -which in turn enhances the quality of life for our residents - acrossBritish Columbia, through innovative applications of science andtechnology.

23

UN-FAO Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP)

The Technical Cooperation Program (TCP) was launched in 1976as an essential means to make FAO's specialized competence morereadily available to Member Nations for the solution of their mostpressing development problems in the agriculture, fisheries andforestry sectors and rural development.

Through TCP, FAO allocates limited, but identifiable and assured,resources to fulfill one of its key constitutional functions, i.e. tofurnish such technical assistance as governments may request. It isan integral part of the Organization’s Regular Program financedfrom the assessed budget. In particular, the TCP is the instrument,which enables FAO to respond rapidly to urgent needs fortechnical and emergency assistance in member countries and tocontribute to their capacity building. The program does not operatein isolation, but is closely associated with other normative andfield activities of the Organization. It contributes in its own right tomajor Regular Program objectives.

The main features of TCP are its un-programmed and urgentcharacter; its flexibility in responding to new technical issues andproblems; speed in approval; clear focus; limited projectintervention with short duration; low costs; practical orientation;and catalytic role. By design and in practice, the TCP meetsunforeseen needs, fills crucial gaps, complements other forms ofassistance, and promotes resource availability for technicalcooperation in the above fields, whether channeled through FAOor otherwise.

The focus of the program is on increasing food production andraising the income and nutritional standards of small farmers andrural workers. It gives priority to the Least Developed Countries(LDC), to the Low-Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDC), andto the small-scale producers and workers.

Requests for Technical Assistance under the Program may bepresented by Governments of Member Countries which qualify fordevelopment assistance under the UN system and by inter-governmental organizations of which such countries are members,and are recognized as such, by the UN System and FAO. Theymay also be submitted by national non-government organizations(NGOs), if endorsed by the Government concerned.

24

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/TCD

(This program would be a significant benefit to a proposed Foundation. Significanteffort should be put into examining this option. Not only would it generate significantfunding but it would generate enormous profile to the Foundation. To the author’sknowledge, no one in Canada has ever applied for this program. It appears that a groupin Oregon has recently been successful and, therefore, should be targeted by theFoundation.)

25

COULD THE CHMSF BE STRUCTURED ANDOPERATED MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THE AFRF

OR BC SALMON MARKETING BOARD ?

Bill 52 in Provincial Legislation allows that commodity groups may charge a levy onproduction to assist in the marketing activities for their specific commodity.

To be able to use this legislation requires majority support of sector members achievedvia a ballot. The distribution of proceeds from this type for funding is limited andrestricted by legislation (Research and Management cost are not eligible). In addition,individual fishermen are able to request the return of funds collected under provincialregulation, which is a substantial problem for agencies, such as the BC SalmonMarketing Council, that make use of such regulation.

The American Fishermen’s Research Foundation (AFRF) is funded through a series ofmechanisms including contributions from the Western Fishboat Owner’s Association.Funds which are collected through an industry Levy. In the case of the CHMSF it isappropriate to use a voluntarily agreed too levy through an Association, Buyer andFishermen contributions to achieve such funding.

26

WHO SHOULD THE CHMSF BE RESPONSIBLE TOREPORT TO - IF ANYONE ?

As a Federal Registered Not-For-Profit Foundation the CHMSF would be responsible toit members and contributors to act on their best behalf.

It would be appropriate for the Bylaws of the Constitution to identify a specific portion(%) of funds to be allocated to purposes of scientific research in order to ensure that aninappropriate level of funding does not go to administration.

Certain funding agencies may have specific criteria for reporting or deliverables that willdictate specific responsibility until completion of a project. If the Foundation is eligiblefor a charitable status specific financial report obligations must be met.

It may be possible to achieve charitable status for the Foundation. This may generategreater levels of contribution through donation, from other industry, (oil companies, otherfoundations, etc.) and result in significant contribution of funds for undertaking research.Federal authorities have been contacted and preliminary discussion suggests that as themission of the Foundation involves both education and economic sustainability it may beeligible for this tax designation. Formal determination is made during the applicationphase for incorporation.

27

WOULD THE BCTFA BE ENTITLED TO ANADMINISTRATIVE FEE ?

It is likely, at least preliminarily, that the BCTFA should facilitate the foundation throughcollection of logbook data, book keypunch, mail out, etc. This makes for the efficient useof the existing infrastructure. In this regard, the Board of Directors could determine thatit be appropriate for an administrative fee be paid to the BCTFA in compensation for thiseffort.

Once the foundation develops to the extent that it requires people full time to facilitate itsadministrative needs this could be changed. Alternatively, the Foundation couldpermanently subcontract the BCTFA, or any other Association, to undertake specifictasks. This would again, be at the discretion of the Foundation Board of Directors.

28

ARE THERE ANY LEGAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BEACCOUNTED FOR ?

There is always a concern by Directors that at some point in time they may be held liablefor their actions. This, in the past and present, has limited valuable contribution byindustry members towards important activities.

There are various means to address this issue.

General Insurance

This is a private package held with an insurance brokerage housethat provides insurance against accidental injury, property damage,etc. A typical package to insure the Board and the FoundationItself is valued at approx. $700-$1,000 Per annum, depending onlevel of coverage. (Pers. Com- Chris Flint- Aon ReedStenhouse/Victoria, BC). Criminal activity excluded.

Director Liability Insurance

This is a private package held with an insurance brokerage housethat provides insurance against law suits launched by others as adirect result of Directors activities. A typical package to insure 15Directors that manage expenditures of $500,000 per year is valuedat approx. $2,000-$2,500 Per annum. (Pers. Com- Chris Flint-Aon Reed Stenhouse/Victoria, BC). Criminal activity excluded.

Share Limitation:

You will note that I have suggested members be issued shares inthe Foundation. According to legal advice obtained during heformation of another Association, liability of Directors/Membersthat hold shares in an Association/Co-op, etc. is limited to thevalue of their share(s) (criminal activity excluded). In this regard,Directors would be required to hold a minimum of 1 share. Ifshares are valued at $5.00, for example, this is the maximum levelthat Members or Directors could be sued.

Given that profile is a significant aspect of such a proposedFoundation, it would be appropriate to issue shares and carry bothGeneral Liability Insurance and Director’s liability insurance.

29

WHAT, IF ANY, RELATIONSHIP SHOULD EXISTBETWEEN DFO AND CHMSF ?

Such a Foundation would provide an opportunity for industry and DFO to work togetherin mutually supporting roles. Industry may benefit from contribution by DFO scientistsand perhaps facilities, equipment and funding for expanded research. DFO may benefitby expanding the Canadian role in international research endeavors, which may generatea greater understanding of oceanography and climate and support their mandate ofresource conservation and fishery sustainability.

Specifically, neither DFO nor any government personnel should have a voting positionon the Board. As some funding assistance may be expected from DFO, the Province, etc.a voting position would compromise the position of non-industry members. For theprotection of all, non-industry members and Board members, DFO and other governmentrepresentatives should only be represented on the Board and or Committees as advisors tothe process.

30

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the nature of the species in question – InternationalCollaborative Scientific Research is Required to sustain thespecies and fishery.

It is the opinion and advice of the author that the formation of aFoundation to support science based activities pertaining tosupporting the sustainability and development of this fishery is aNecessity.

In order for BC Industry members to achieve the profile requiredto contribute to international level research it is advised that theproposed Foundation be established as a Federally RegisteredNot For Profit Society.

It is recommended, that during the process of formation of theFoundation, an application be filed with the appropriate authoritiesto achieve Charitable Status. This would have an advantage inincreasing the likelihood of securing funds from externalcorporations or other foundations.

Successful formation of a Foundation will require that industryfully support the activities of the Foundation through subscribingto a Logbook, Landing Levy, or other program.

It is expected that the CHMSF would be a significant collaboratorand contributor of research funds to AFRF and/or organizationsthat undertake scientific research supporting sustainability of theworld’s Tuna resources.

Directing funds to AFRF or other research entities, through aCanadian Foundation, will specifically identify the contribution byBC/Canadian industry and government. Under the currentsituation it is unlikely that US industry fully recognizes orappreciates the contributions of Canadian Industry.

Currently it is extremely difficult to leverage funds throughCanadian programs to contribute to programs carried out byexternal foundation such as AFRF. The Formation Of ACanadian Foundation Would Enable BC Industry To LeverageFunds For Projects That May, At The Discretion Of TheFoundation, Contribute Funds To International Projects.

31

The full impact of the formation of the proposed Foundationshould be, not only an increase in funds directed to researchactivities directed at the targeted species, but specificallyidentifying and acknowledging the contribution by both BritishColombia and Canada.

32

PERTINENT REFERENCE MATERIAL

Anonymous, 1949. Convention For the Establishment of an Inter-Tropical Tuna Commission. May 31, 1949.http://tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/tests/tre-0050.txt

Anonymous, 1995. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law Of The Sea -- 10 December 1982,Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocksand Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. United Nations. July 24-August 4,1995. Gopher://gopher.un.org/00/LOS/CONF164/164_37.TXT

Anonymous, 1999. Canadian Atlantic Integrated Fisheries Management PlanBigeye, Yellofin (Thunnus obesus) (Thunnus albacares) Albacorre Tunas(Thunnus alalunga 1998-99. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 38 pages.http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries/res/imp/98othon.html

Anonymous, 2000. Overview of the North Pacific Albacore Fishery- supplied byAmerican Fishermen’s Research Foundation.http://www.afrf.org/NoPac/Natl5299.htm

Anonymous, 2000. Convention on the Conservation and Management of HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and FinalAct.- Adopted by the Conference. 4 September, 2000. Honolulu, Hawaii.MHLC.35 pages.

Anonymous, 2000. Multilateral High-Level Conference on the Conservation andManagement of Highly-Migratory Fishstocks in the Western and CentralPacific. Sixth Session. Honolulu, Hawaii. April 12-19, 2000.

Anonymous, 2000. British Columbia Tuna Fishermen’s Association. Brochure.

Anonymous, 2001. American Fishermen’s Research Foundation News. AFRF:Issue #17 – 11/26/01.

33

PERTINENT REFERENCE MATERIAL cont.

Anonymous, 2001. Final Report – Preliminary Analysis of the Value-addedOpportunities for Albacore Tuna and Seafood Products. Prepared for theBCTFA. July 30, 2001. 44 pages.

Anonymous, 2001. North Pacific Albacore Stock Status for 2001. 10 pages.

Anonymous, 2002. About the UNIA (the “UN Implementation Agreement” ofthe straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Species Agreementwithin the Law of the Sea Convention. Supplied by Western FishboatOwners Association. http://www.wfoa-tuna.org/Manage/Intrnatl/UNIA.html

Anonymous, 2002. Pacific Region -Integrated Fisheries Management Plan –Tuna, April 1/2002 to March 31/2003. Department of Fisheries andOceans Canada. 20 pages.

Argue, Sandy, 2000. Data from the November 20, 2000 Technical ConsultationBetween Canadian and U.S. Government Officials on Implementation ofthe Albacore Treaty. Memorandum-Unclassified. 21 pages.

Bourque, S.C. and R.D. Humphreys, 1973. Status of the 1972 BritishColumbia Albacore Fishery. Technical Report 1973-3. Canada,Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service , PacificRegion. June 1973. 62 pages.

Pepper, Don 2001. Economic Potential for Offshore Highly Migratory Species.For BCTFA, May 2001. Prepared by Don Pepper and Associates. 46 pp.

Shaw, William and Norman Bartoo (Ed.), 1997. Report of the Fifteenth NorthPacific Albacore Workshop Nanaimo, BC., Canada. December 3-5, 1997.34 pages.

Stavrakov, John, 2001. The BC Tuna Industry ~ Planning for the Future.Prepared for the BCTFA April 29, 2001. 83 pages.