Hinweis zum Urheberrecht
Bericht / Forschungsbericht / Abhandlung zugänglich unter
URL: https://epub.sub.uni-hamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2009/1677/
Focus Group Research : Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing – Domestic Attitudes
Environics Research Group
| BK - Klassifikation: |
| 48.67 , 43.31 |
| Sondersammelgebiete: |
| 21.3 Küsten- und Hochseefischerei |
| DDC-Sachgruppe: |
| Biowissenschaften, Biologie |
| Sonstige beteiligte Institution: |
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada |
| Dokumentart: |
| Bericht / Forschungsbericht / Abhandlung |
| Sprache: |
| Englisch |
| Erstellungsjahr: |
| 2005 |
| Publikationsdatum: |
| 19.05.2009 |
| Kurzfassung auf Deutsch: |
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Key Findings and Conclusions
Canada’s Fisheries
• Discussions with Canadians across the country consistently showed a firm attachment to the notion of a healthy, sustainable fishery, regardless of whether or not fisheries are relevant to them personally. People living in fishery dependent communities seem to underestimate the extent to which other Canadians do actually care about the fishery.
• Most participants, outside of fishery dependent coastal areas, saw the major challenges facing fisheries as being very much environmental and conservation issues.
Overfishing/shrinking stocks were consistently mentioned; other concerns raised
included risks from fish farming (aquaculture), and pollution.
• The importance of fisheries to Canada as a whole was very widely appreciated all across the country for environmental and economic reasons and a recognition of the importance of fish to Canada’s historical development. However, Canadian participants were sometimes surprised to hear just how important fisheries were economically.
�� There was some resignation to the idea that primary (resource-based) industries like fisheries may stagnate or decline, however, participants did not necessarily support that this had to be the case.
Overfishing – General Awareness
• Awareness of overfishing problems was almost universal and it created images of drag nets, rogue trawlers in Canadian waters and oceans devoid of fish. Various countries were blamed and there was some acknowledgement that Canada shared in some of this blame.
• Concerns about overfishing related both to economics and to the environment, as participants expressed a want/need for a balance between the economy and
environment. General population participants were concerned and reacted emotionally
to unemployment rates, but they also saw overfishing in the context of a threat to the global eco-system.
• There was a very widely held view that the “issue” around overfishing is really about foreign vessels invading Canadian waters and fishing illegally. The fact that the problem the government wants to address is actually regarding what happens in international waters was not well understood.
DFO’s Efforts
• Most general population participants had no idea what DFO is doing about overfishing, but there was an assumption that it must be inadequate since the problem was seen to be worsening. Most people only vaguely recalled incidents such as the seizing of a vessel in the 90s, although notably, one individual recalled May 2004 incidents
• It was generally supported that in order to deal with the overfishing problem, DFO will need a diplomatic strategy that can be enforced. The perception was that Canada must work with other players such as international organizations, scientists and other DFO countries for lasting change. Awareness of Canadian diplomatic efforts on the overfishing issue and of the existence of organizations such as NAFO was almost nonexistent.
• There were also concerns about whether or not Canada’s own legal and illegal fishing were contributing to the problem. Stakeholder participants were more concerned that a stronger focus on global overfishing may divert resources away from domestic enforcement or other important programs.
Communications Approach
• Communications materials attracted a wide range of views. Some segments of the
groups rejected almost any message from DFO due to the attitudes towards government
that they brought to the table. However, most appreciate learning about Canada’s
actions to date. “It should really be brought to the public eye.”
• General population participants liked to learn about progress being made on this issue and they wanted to know more about what other countries are doing, who Canada’s allies are and what kinds of penalties can be meted out to offenders. Education of general population in Canada and Europe was suggested as an important part of the solution: enforcement, diplomacy and education.
• It was clear that care must be taken to avoid facts that create an impression that is the opposite of what was intended (i.e., the reference to eight citations of foreign vessels was consistently seen as a sign of a weak policy not a strong one and caused much frustration within the groups). Without context financial numbers, such as the $45 million strategy, evoke a mix of reactions. Big dollar amounts should be explained consistently in terms of actions (i.e., $15 million for increased monitoring) or broken down somewhat
to provide greater detail on use ($5 million for this, $10 million for that). This not only aids understanding and acceptance but also limits the possibility of confusion when the numbers are used for different communications products.
Canada’s Strategy
• There was considerable support for involving other government departments such as Foreign Affairs, Defence and Environment Canada in any overfishing strategy.
• There was a strong sense of indignation as foreigners were often perceived to be pillaging inside Canadian waters, as a result, people wanted to know what enforcement there was and what penalties can be issued.
• There was considerable support for taking a harder line and enforcing regulations in international waters. Participants found the lack of punishment very disconcerting, but there was little support for Canada taking unilateral action.
• Stakeholders were the most likely to favour strong action, but felt there were dangers to Canada if it went it alone without allies. International partnerships or alliances were seen to be critical to Canada’s success.
• The possibility of there being retaliation in the form of economic sanctions against Canada was a consideration. But Alberta and British Colombia participants pointed out that we have already withstood US actions on softwood lumber and beef exports. Still, there was general agreement that these possibilities have to be weighed against the potential advantages of taking any kind of unilateral action.
• There was universal support for making the principle of sustainable development the centrepiece of Canada’s global strategy on international overfishing. Participants agreed that Canada needs to be seen to be acting out of concern for the global fishery and not just out of self-interest. The idea of Canada taking the lead on this issue was generally supported.
B. Suggested Future Public Opinion Research
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is already planning a second phase of qualitative research to be conducted in various European cities in the winter of 2005. This research will be invaluable as a baseline study of how engaged Europeans and fishery and environmental stakeholders look upon this issue. DFO has some medium-term strategies both in Canada and in Europe that will benefit from environmental tracking.
We suggest that a follow-up to this Canadian qualitative research would be a quantitative study.
Focus group research can tell us something about the range of opinions and the kinds of language used by the Canadian public, but it cannot tell us with any precision how prevalent Canadians’ opinions are. As DFO’s policies in this area get implemented and communicated, it will be useful to measure the perceived their effectiveness through the use of omnibus questions on a national vehicle (i.e., FOCUS CANADA). It will also be very beneficial for DFO to
track how the salience of this issue increases or decreases over time.
It is also possible that more qualitative research may be required down the road – if there are some major developments requiring a shift in approach or if DFO wants to test reaction to potential new policy measures or communications materials. The same holds true for the planned European sessions.
There will also be a need to conduct some follow-up research among stakeholders, as there are further developments on this file. A quantitative survey of stakeholders is not very practical. It might make more sense in the future to set up some intensive one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders to get their unvarnished opinions on DFO’s latest actions dealing with overfishing. |
