Toward an Ecosystem Approach to Bottom Trawling in Canada

Experience fromOther JurisdictionsCanada’s approach for addressing the impacts from bottom trawling, as describedin the previous section, is narrow in scope, does not measure up to internationalbest practice, and does not fulfill the letter and spirit of internationalagreements made by Canada. Under the current approach, for example, ongoingincursions into previously untrawled areas would not be prohibited and historicallytrawled areas would not be restored. Canada can learn from examples found in nationswith progressive fisheries policies such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, andthe European Union.United StatesThe United States has recognized in its fishery law that the loss of habitat poses one of thelargest threats to fisheries. 62 To address this concern, the U.S. government has made theidentification and description of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) a fundamental componentof Fisheries Management Plans through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act. The management of the fishery is guided by the general principle ofminimizing to the extent practicable the impacts caused by fishing on the identified habitat. 63Since EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,feeding or growth to maturity”, and since the Act applies to all fish, it is not surprisingthat EFH comprises essentially all benthic areas. It can therefore be concluded that the U.S.approach is to reduce and limit the impacts on the bottom however practicable. This isclearly illustrated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s recent actions, which haveresulted in large closures to mobile benthic fishing gears.To achieve the goal of “minimizing” harm to benthic habitats, the U.S. has adoptedthree broad categories of management measures recognized as being effective for mitigatingadverse impacts to EFH: gear modifications, closed areas, and overall reductions offishing effort.30