Print Version

Final Report
Review of Recent DFO-related
POR and Suggestions for the Future

Presented to
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO)

October 5, 2004

LES ÉTUDES DE MARCHÉ CRÉATEC +
206, Avenue des Pins East - Montreal (Québec) H2W 1P1
Tel.: (514) 844-1127 - Fax: (514) 288-3194
Email: info@createc.ca / Web Site: www.createc.ca

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose of the Review

2.Key Public Opinion Research (POR) Findings

2.1 DFO Strategic Plan

2.2 Overfishing

2.3 Aquaculture Governance

2.4 Canadian Coast Guard Modernization

2.5 Fisheries Management

2.6 Science

3.Key Themes

3.1 Awareness, Understanding and Impressions of DFO

3.2 Environmental Protection and Sustainability

3.3 Science Research and Expertise

3.4 Leadership and Shared Decision-Making

4.Communications Implications

4.1 Receptivity and Opportunities

4.2 Terminology

5. Suggestions for Future POR

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Qualitative POR

5.3 Quantitative POR

APPENDIX 1 - Summary of POR Qualitative Data

1. Ingraham Trail Lakes Fisher Opinion Survey (March 2005 – DataPath Systems)

2. Focus Group Research: Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing – European Attitudes (March 2005 – Environics)

3. Qualitative Findings from Focus Group Discussions on the Communications of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Strategic Plan and Sustainable Development (March 2005 – Pollara)

4. Qualitative Research Exploring Canadians' Perceptions, Attitudes and Concerns towards Aquaculture (February 2005 – Créatec)

5. Focus Groups Research: Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing - Domestic Attitudes (February 2005 – Environics)

6. A presentation to the Government of Canada Inter-Departmental Group on Smart Regulation: Topline findings from Focus Group Research (December 1, 2004 – The Strategic Counsel)

7. Qualitative Research for Strategic Plan Development (March 2004 – Créatec)

APPENDIX 2 - Summary of POR Quantitative Data

1. Global Overfishing Omnibus (June 2005 – Environics)

2. Seals Omnibus Report (February 2005 – Ipsos-Reid)

3. Canadian Coast Guard Omnibus Tables (August 2004 – Environics)

4. Aquaculture Omnibus Tables (March 2004 – Environics)

top of page

1. Purpose of the Review

• The purpose of this report is to review public opinion research (POR) studies conducted by or for DFO in the past 18 months (back to December 2003) in order to:
   

• Provide a concise source of information about DFO’s POR effort and highlight key findings about DFO key audiences.
   

• Assist with the development of DFO’s Environmental Scan.
   

• Identify key POR needs and opportunities for the future.
   

• The report specifically looks at POR results through the lense of DFO’s 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, Our Waters, Our Future. It categorizes results according to priority areas and themes that can be linked to DFO's strategic outcomes: healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems, sustainable fisheres and aquaculture, safe and accessible waterways.

top of page

2. Key Public Opinion Research (POR) Findings

• Defining the audience is the key not only to media selection but also to planning and developing a creative strategy, since it is necessary to inform writers, designers and policy-makers about the intended audience for various messages. However, a statistical definition of the audience (ex. distribution by age, gender etc.) is insufficient for any successful planning and communication strategy. It is necessary to document views, attitudes, and beliefs, which was one of the purposes of all of the POR conducted recently by DFO.
   
• This overview is based mainly on qualitative findings, reflecting the predominance of this approach in DFO's POR efforts. Thus, there are many more issues to report from qualitative studies, and fewer from quantitative findings, which actually support what was learned in qualitative.
   
• In total, 7 qualitative and 4 quantitative DFO-related POR studies (2004-2005) were reviewed. More details about the findings from each study in this review are appended.

top of page

2.1 DFO Strategic Plan

DFO Vision, Priority and Goals

• In accordance with the priorities, goals and vision outlined in the DFO Strategic Plan, the following list of strategic platforms or principles elicited clear support:
   

• The conservation and protection of fish and their natural habitat was seen as the main DFO mission ("fish" as the generic term for all marine species and their habitat).
   

• Action to sustain the health of fish stocks (60%/2005) was clearly favoured over action to sustain the fishing industry (30%), especially in Atlantic provinces (71% vs. 25%) and in BC (69% vs. 21%).
   

• Overall, people wanted DFO to take an aggressive stance in the fight against overfishing, and be seen to do so. In fact, the idea of Canada becoming an international leader in fighting overfishing was well-supported.
   

• People also clearly wanted strong regulation, enforcement and penalties for overfishing in oceans and freshwater, as well as for fish farms and related environmental pollution.
   

• Labelling for farmed fish products was important because food safety was a high priority. Furthermore, 86% (2005) were very concerned or somewhat concerned about the future of the world’s fish stocks as a source of food.
   

• Many participants were confused about jurisdictions over "waters" and related resources. Most understood that oceans and coastlines were federal, but were unclear about freshwater and water safety.
   
• Increased funds and resources were thought to be needed, especially for the CCG, and were to be aimed at enforcement as well as science research.
   
• In regard to public opinion research about the federal Smart Regulation agenda, in which DFO was a partner, there was no awareness of "smart regulation" and low awareness of Canada’s regulatory system. The term "smart regulation" elicited some concern about more regulation rather than better regulation (and as opposed to de-regulation).
   
• Thematics of interest to DFO are that stakeholders tended to support process-oriented directions, such as integrated management and smart regulation.  Environmental concerns and implications figured prominently in participants’ comments and there was support for giving increased weight to environmental considerations in setting regulatory policy.
   

Sustainable Development

• Overall, the concept of sustainable development met with approval, regardless of people's level of understanding or familiarity with the term.
   
• Understanding of the concept seemed to improve somewhat between 2004 and 2005.
   
• However, the concept was questioned by some who saw it as unquantifiable, with the balance necessary to achieve a long-term outcome quite difficult-to-predict or anticipate.

top of page

2.2 Overfishing

• Most of the general public respondents in Canada and Europe saw overfishing as a threat to the global ecosystem, and assumed that enforcement of overfishing must be inadequate since the problem was worsening. Most Canadian participants blamed European countries, along with Canada.
   
• Only 13% (2005) of Canadians were not concerned by the future of fish stocks.
   

• 53% of Canadians were not aware of any actions Canada has taken to stop overfishing in international waters and,
   

• 82% said it was very important that Canada take action to stop overfishing in international waters.
   

• There was a widely held misconception in both Canada and Europe that overfishing meant foreign vessels fishing illegally in Canadian (or national) waters, with a poor understanding that the problem relates more to international waters.
   
• Across studies, people were generally unable to visualize issues related to fisheries and oceans, except for disturbing images related to overfishing, such as drag nets and rogue trawlers.
   
• Considerable general public support was generated among Canadian participants for the government to take a harder line and enforce regulations in international waters.

International Fisheries and Oceans Governance

• There was universal support for making the principle of sustainable development the centrepiece of Canada’s global strategy on international overfishing.
   
• The Canadian public expressed a clear need and desire to know about enforcement and penalties against those who overfish, and found the lack of punishment very disconcerting.
   
• 57% (2005) think Canada would be more effective in addressing overfishing by increasing surveillance of international waters.
   
• Stakeholders tended to favour strong action, but saw international partnerships or alliances as critical to Canada’s success. Stakeholders were also concerned that a strong focus on global overfishing could divert resources away from domestic enforcement or other important DFO programs.
   
• While there was general support in Canada and Europe for enforcing the rules and regulations, some concerns emerged about how enforcement would be carried over to the concept of sustainable development.

European and Canadian Commonalities

• The following views or perspectives were shared by Canadian respondents and their European counterparts:
   
• Skepticism towards their own national government.
   
• Major concerns about enforcement and regulation, especially with regard to overfishing.
   
• Misconceptions about overfishing and the definition of the Exclusive Economic Zone.
   
• The main challenges and issues to fisheries: declining fish stocks, overfishing and pollution.
   

• Pessimistic views about declining fish stocks and irreplaceable job losses.

• The high importance attached to international governance.

• Support for a sustainable development approach.

top of page

2.3 Aquaculture Governance

• Overall, there was low awareness and poor understanding of the term "aquaculture," but "fish-farming" was generally understood. A few used the term "aqua-farming."
   
• Negative perceptions tended to dominate, along a continuum increasing from east to west, based mainly on unfavourable publicity about PCBs in farmed salmon, the perceived lack of positive public information, plus observed unimpeded, unregulated environmental destruction, especially in the west.
   
• Aquaculture generated high involvement and had personal relevance, due to strong food safety and environmental concerns. There was a high receptivity to positive information.
   

• Aquaculture was seen to have a future if the industry was improved and better-regulated. Most participants wanted the government to get tough about regulating and enforcing safety and environmental standards, to educate the public, and to provide scientific proof and balanced information from both DFO and independent studies.

• Canadians had clear expectations about how the aquaculture industry should be regulated: Step #1: conduct impact studies, including lessons learned from other countries; Step #2: establish an independent arm’s length regulatory body; and Step #3: develop a strong regulatory process with regard to who should be involved, what to regulate, as well as monitoring, inspection, enforcement, and marketing
   
• A "national framework" for aquaculture with regionally-developed, administered, regulated and enforced standards would likely garner strong support.

top of page

2.4 Canadian Coast Guard Modernization

• The CCG had a favourable image, was seen mostly as a law enforcement agency, and most general public participants were mainly aware of search and rescue operations. However, ice-breaking, boating laws and navigational aids, enforcement of NWPA, and weather observation were infrequently mentioned.
   
• Protecting fish stocks from overfishing by foreign countries appears to be the CCG's raison d’être (40%/2004), more so than providing ships to support Canadian security agencies (26%) or protection against potential terrorism (16%).
   
• Because the CCG was seen to lack the resources (boats, equipment, manpower) necessary to fulfill its roles, the public was reluctant to add Arctic and public security functions.
   
• Increased funds and resources were thought to be needed for the CCG, to be aimed mainly at enforcement.
   

top of page

2.5 Fisheries Management

• There was a firm attachment to the notion of a healthy, sustainable fishery.
   
• The general public's involvement and interest in fisheries issues was underestimated by those in coastal communities.
   
• The perceived major challenges facing fisheries included both environmental and conservation issues. Overfishing and shrinking stocks were consistently mentioned, plus risks from aquaculture, and pollution.
   
• The importance of fisheries to Canada as a whole was very widely appreciated, but some were surprised to learn the economic importance of fisheries.
   
• While most were resigned to the idea that primary, resource-based industries like fisheries could stagnate or decline, hope still existed.
   
• Overall, public opinion was divided on the issue of commercial seal hunting, even if carried out in a humane manner. However, strong opponents (28%/2005) clearly outweighed strong approvers (19%), which suggests that any issue on commercial hunting has a natural tendency to develop into disapproval and needs strong justification to elicit resignation or approval.

top of page

2.6 Science

• Overall, the general public valued research and science, and DFO research and studies contributed in large part to a positive impression of the department. In fact, DFO is almost perceived as a science department.
   
• However, stakeholders were angry over cutbacks to both the research budget and function.
   
• General public participants wanted scientific proof and balanced information from both DFO and independent studies, especially about aquaculture and other important fish-related issues. Many felt that scientific studies were only as valid as the organization that paid for them.
   
• Participants, especially those in coastal communities, wanted DFO to honestly admit past mistakes, and to indicate how they would do things differently now, using current up-to-date science research and expertise.

top of page

3. Key Themes

3.1 Awareness, Understanding and Impressions of DFO

Audience State-of-Mind

• The Canadian general public get involved quickly and grow very receptive to DFO issues during focus group discussions. However, most become overwhelmed and confused when considering DFO issues. They acknowledge the complexity and the conflicting interests, but don't feel knowledgeable enough to express definitive views and don’t feel competent enough to learn the details. In fact, most would rather avoid the details.
   
• DFO issues were abstract and esoteric topics for most general public/Aboriginal groups, who saw fisheries and oceans in an environmental or ecological context, one in which values are becoming more globally-oriented, rather than from an economic perspective.
   
• While stakeholders are knowledgeable and well-informed, the general public has a very low understanding of DFO terminology and jargon. But since current imagery related to fisheries is very limited and almost exclusively concentrated on overfishing, they also have no visual clues in their minds to relate with other DFO issues such as: oceans/fisheries, science, aquaculture, international fisheries and oceans governance, etc.
   
• Overall, the main weakness in the relationship between DFO and Canadians is not what to do, but how to make it happen, especially with the perception of dwindling and limited federal support on a financial, regulatory, and leadership level. The necessary instruments (CCG, staffing, science and research) are not seen to be in place.
   
• Stakeholder specificities:
   

• Stakeholders tend to cite the past when assessing or judging DFO initiatives, thus DFO needs to demonstrate it has learned from past errors and is taking corrective measures;
   

• Stakeholders are keen for detailed information and understanding, the more the better;
   

• Stakeholders tend to be turned off by discourse heard before, and are looking for something new.
   

• Aboriginal Issues
   
• Aboriginals were similar to the general public in their low awareness of fisheries issues, and in their attitudes or ideas about most topics.
   
• Most general public respondents (including Aboriginals) thought Aboriginal people should not be allowed to fish without limits, due to declining fish stocks. There was general support for the principle of no limits as long as it was not based on commercial factors.
   
• There was mixed reaction to the government "obligation" to create social and economic opportunities for Aboriginal people in fishing and habitat management, even among Aboriginals.
   
• There was general agreement, even among Aboriginals, that providing direct funds was not the best way to help Aboriginal people. However, educational funding was quite well-liked.
   
• Aboriginal participants wanted increased communication with DFO, along with more consultation and more information shared by the Department.

Awareness, Understanding and Impressions of DFO

• Overall, the general public sees a negative halo around fisheries issues and DFO mainly due to declining fish stocks and long-standing images of seemingly permitted overfishing.
• In addition, most seriously doubted DFO had the resources, ability or political will to conserve, protect or improve fish stocks and fish habitats.
   
• Outside coastal areas, there was almost no awareness of DFO services and responsibilities.
   
• DFO essentially meant fish to most of the general public.
   
• Thus, except for overfishing, there is low awareness and familiarity with most fish-related issues, such as: the current Canadian regulatory environment, Canada's international fisheries and oceans governance strategy, and DFO’s role and responsibilities (including the CCG, Aboriginal issues, offshore oil-drilling, aquaculture and SARA.)
   
• Due to a perception of a scattered mandate and limited funding and resources, DFO was seen as a large bureaucracy without much power or influence within the federal government.
   
• The main impression was that DFO does not manage their decisions well.
   
• The importance of fisheries to Canada as a whole was appreciated, but largely underestimated, and most were surprised to learn of its economic value to Canada.
   
• Enforcement was generally seen as an extremely important DFO role, considered lacking with regard to overfishing in the east, and aquaculture in the west. In coastal areas, it was clearly considered the most important DFO role.
   
• DFO Challenges
   

• Overfishing and declining fish stocks were seen as the most important and urgent DFO challenge by Canadians and Europeans.

• Over a dozen specific environmental challenges were named for DFO, ranging from conservation to the affects of forestry, agriculture, climate change, disease, habitat destruction, invasive species and endangered species.

• DFO leadership and jurisdiction, and improving DFO's negative image were also considered important DFO challenges.

top of page

3.2 Environmental Protection and Sustainability

• Most participants already think about fisheries and oceans issues in terms of sustainable development, without even knowing the name of the concept or its philosophical underpinnings.
   
• People consistently favoured environmental protection and conservation over other types of goals. For example, longer-term environmental conservation was almost always preferred over shorter-term socio-economic goals.
   
• There was clear support for the need to balance the environment and economic interests, with a strong favouring of the environment.

top of page

3.3 Science Research and Expertise

• Science and research was seen as one of DFO's main positive activities, valued highly by most. While both the Canadian general public and stakeholders wanted more, attitudes varied towards scientific credibility.
   
• To create a favourable climate for the responsible development of aquaculture, science is believed to be very important (61%/2004, more so than regulations (52%) and economic support (51%).
   
• A strong perception held mainly by stakeholders was that science expertise has become less important at DFO due to the influence of politically-powerful stakeholders, as well as severe cuts to its research budget and function.
   
• A scientific-based approach to decision-making generated support, especially (but not exclusively) among stakeholders.
   
• Strong support was generated for a collaborative process which would be used along with science information, increased science research funding and more input from experts.
   
• Expertise would be drawn from (1) DFO, (2) independent (i.e., university-based) studies, and (3) the experientially-based know-how of local fishers.

top of page

3.4 Leadership and Shared Decision-Making

• Overall, there was general support for a decentralized decision-making process, in various ways, including: cooperative partnerships between DFO and business, Aboriginal communities, cities, and other countries.
   

• People gave consistent approval to the idea of DFO consultation with local stakeholders, as long as 3 criteria were met: (1) include all stakeholders, (2) have a transparent monitored process, and (3) get local input before decisions are made.

• Participants also responded favourably to collaborative consultation with other federal government departments (CFIA, EC, HC), and stakeholder partnerships.
   
• However, there was also some ambivalence to a participatory approach in the decision-making process. Some general public participants thought that sharing decisions could weaken an already weak Department, and that a participatory approach would lack leadership. People thought someone was needed to make the tough decisions.
   
• In addition, people wanted increased communication between DFO and the regions, especially to explain its policies and decisions.

top of page

4. Communications Implications

4.1 Receptivity and Opportunities

• The general public currently has a stronger need to be reassured than to be informed or educated.
   
• Reassurance is needed that someone is committed, in charge, and taking care of marine ecosystems and the future fish supply.
   
• Most people seriously doubted that DFO had the resources, ability or political will to conserve, protect or improve fish stocks and fish habitats.
   
• People had no specific expectations about ways to communicate, but the absence of TV coverage was perceived as evidence that DFO issues aren't important or given importance by the federal government.
   
• The general public is receptive to messages about progress, what other countries are doing, who Canada’s allies are and what kinds of penalties can be meted out to overfishing offenders.
   
• Overall, most people don’t want to rely on one source of information (even from environmental groups), and are turned off by extreme or apparently unbalanced positions. For example:
   

• Confidence in environmental organisations ranked first with only 37% (2004) and confidence in the media was only 8%, as a source of information on aquaculture.
   

• Confidence in the media as a source of information about aquaculture has significantly declined (21% in 2003), while trust in environmental groups has significantly increased (26% in 2003).

• Major gaps or opportunities for communication with the general public exist because the following issues were considered highly important and/or relevant, yet the public had much lower awareness of:
   

• DFO's overfishing strategy

• Canadian initiatives in international fisheries and oceans governance

• Actions taken to regulate aquaculture.

• In fact, people’s concerns about aquaculture (mainly food and environmental safety) must be addressed first for benefits to have a chance to play an influential role.

• It is also important to strike a balance between social, environmental and economic benefits in communications.
   
• Using the website to provide additional background information generally met with approval, and provided accessible reassurance for those who wanted detailed answers to their questions.

top of page

4.2 Terminology

• Overall, terminology was a major barrier to people's ability to understand what DFO was doing or was planning to do. When discussed in the context of a group, and explained in plain language by a more knowledgeable focus group respondent, many DFO ideas were appreciated or valued.
   
• The following findings emerged from the various qualitative studies:
   
• Use caution with numbers, to avoid creating negative impressions or confusion. In addition, it needs to give context to financial numbers; clearly and simply explain large amounts.
   
• The concept of "sustainable development" was liked, but the term itself was considered cliché or political double-speak.
   
• The term "broader oceans management" was not well-received, but people liked the idea of DFO moving to include the oceans, as a place where fish live.
   
• Overall, the general public wanted "plain language" used, not obscure "gobbledy-gook".
   
• The best term for conservation was the word itself -- "conservation."
   
• "Aqua-farming" may have more resonance than "aquaculture".
   
• In regard to the qualitative research about the federal government’s Smart Regulation, "Smart" was not seen as synonymous for deregulation and was not understood. In addition, the French translation "Réglementation intelligente" was problematic. People wondered what it was before – stupid, dumber, worse? For DFO, this is another useful confirmation of the need to use clear, plain language to explain its programs in relations to the Smart Regulation agenda.
   
• Avoid using superlatives, such as "21st century," "world class," "modern" and "fast-changing" which create resistance and cynicism.
   
• When referring to "stakeholders," people wanted DFO to be specific, to identify who these stakeholders are and if they are Canadian. Some were suspicious of unnamed "partners".

top of page

5. Suggestions for Future POR

5.1 Introduction

• Qualitative and quantitative studies are sometimes criticized for different biases, such as response rate, survey method, focus group representation, etc. Most of the studies reviewed for this report do not caution upfront for possible biases. Other studies (mainly omnibus surveys) are difficult to judge for biases since they do not provide much information on the applied methodologies.
   
• Timeliness may also become an issue if not considered as a variable in the interpretation of the findings, e.g., responses might change depending on the reachable population and specific economic or media environment at the time of the studies. We think it is very useful to systematically describe the prevailing public opinion context/media coverage just prior to any survey reported.
   
• In any case, the reader should be aware that some "generic" limitations apply to all qualitative and quantitative studies.
   
• Overall, the qualitative and quantitative studies reviewed show that Canadians living in coastal areas share different (and sometimes contrasting) views, levels of involvement, awareness, etc., when compared to Canadians living inland. Also, "stakeholders", a very influential target group, have demonstrated some unique characteristics. Therefore, it should always be kept in mind that "averages" may be misleading.

top of page

5.2 Qualitative POR

Suggested Methodological Improvements

• Qualitative research is best used as a learning tool to help understand the depth and breadth of response of particular target populations. Good qualitative research essentially provides a context in which to understand people's perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, feelings and even behaviors. It seeks to explain, and to provide insight into the reasons why particular views are held at a given point in time.
   
• Qualitative research is based on skilled in-depth questioning and careful listening, along with keen observation of participant reaction to the issues being discussed, whether in an interview or group environment. Questions are generally open-ended, and people are free to respond using their own language. The moderator guides the discussion to ensure the material is covered, but even the prepared guide may not be followed to the letter.
   
• The in-depth look provided by qualitative is not available in quantitative efforts. However, qualitative research, even a relatively larger study (of perhaps 100 or so participants), may or may not be representative of any target population, and is not in itself statistically valid.
   
• Qualitative findings reported in the past 18 months show high consistency, and provide both strategic and tactical insights useful for guiding DFO’s actions. However, DFO’s POR efforts would benefit from the following methodological improvements:
   
• Standardize or make consistent the definition/criteria of "involved" or "engaged" Canadians, opinion leaders and stakeholders;
   
• Treat the general public from coastal areas as a distinct target group, both in the design and analysis of the studies.
   
• Complement focus groups using individual interviews with hard-to-reach, specialized and highly-skilled people (in-depth phone interviews with scientists, media people, possibly even stakeholders, etc.).

Suggested Future Studies

• There is a need for a two-phase study, qualitative followed by quantitative, to go more in-depth and explore fisheries and oceans literacy in Canada, in 2 main areas:
   

• How people make sense of the main terminology or language used by DFO to inform Canadians of its strategic plan, vision, goals, priorities, etc., so that user-friendly terms can be agreed on and consistent in all communications. Terminology is a major obstacle to having Canadians understand what DFO is talking about.

• How people currently visualize DFO problems/solutions. Beyond simplistic images of ocean trawlers with huge nets or rugged fishermen on small boats, people have little visual cues with which to imagine or relate to DFO concerns. For example, most don't know how to envision a modern fish-farm, making them more vulnerable to negative stereotypes. The idea here is for DFO to develop an image library to consistently use with its communications.

• There is also a need to conduct "some follow-up research with stakeholders" in Canada and Europe on overfishing, as well as other relevant DFO issues. A quantitative survey of stakeholders is not very practical, but some intensive one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders might make more sense, to get their unvarnished opinions on DFO’s latest actions, strategies, or ideas. This research could be part of the on-going collaborative process.
   
• Finally, and in concurrence with suggestion by PWGSC, communication materials (print, TV, radio), including websites and other internet-based information tools, should be tested on a routine basis, using focus groups or one-on-one in-depth interviews.

top of page

5.3 Quantitative POR

Suggested Methodological Improvements

• Remember that survey data express people’s stated behaviour and attitudes. Because of the tendency to present ourselves in a favourable light, verbal statements may be an imperfect indication of current behaviour and state of mind. Concepts such as sustainable development, conservation, and protection strongly tend to elicit "socially desirable" responses and consequently may somewhat exaggerate support or opposition.
   
• Furthermore, differences in people’s involvement in and understanding of the issues under study may produce a misleading picture of where public opinion is most likely to stand or go when exposed to some controversial issues.
   
• A safe way to address these caveats consists in systematically validating public opinion response to DFO’s issues by conducting both quantitative and qualitative research on the same critical issues and with the same target groups.
   
• Also, as DFO studies consistently report a very low or limited awareness of the issues surveyed, the general public should be read and offered response categories as "don’t know", "can’t say" or "don’t care" as possible and valid answers when being asked questions in quantitative surveys.
   
• Furthermore, because the general public's understanding is so limited and because some studies have identified various misconceptions or prejudices (e.g., about what overfishing is), it should be routine for DFO to qualitatively test in-depth the wording of any new question related to critical aspects of DFO priorities, before it is used in a quantitative survey, to make sure it is understood the way it is intended. By not doing so, the validity of findings on key issues may be questionable or even misleading.
   
• Finally, omnibus surveys have an important limitation to be kept in mind: lack of control of the interview schedule, which can produce unreliable or misleading responses because of possible strong contamination effects. For example, questions of other clients asked before DFO’s questions may bias respondents. In addition, the standardized sample and sampling approach of the omnibus may not be the most appropriate for the DFO’s issues under study.
   
• It is on the quantitative side that DFO’s POR effort needs the most improvement. Our review points to three main methodological improvements for future quantitative surveys:
   
• Integrate the various strategic issues to be surveyed into one coherent interviewing instrument (questionnaire). Currently, issues surveyed are scattered among too many surveys, in addition to being measured at different times.
   
• Shift from omnibus surveys to a custom-tailored survey approach. Omnibus surveys provide quick and low-cost information (cost shared between several clients), and are conducted to a set timetable which may not be adequate to all clients. They are most useful in providing background data and information to fill very general needs or define the scope and approach for a more in-depth research survey. They do not provide a complete and coherent picture and may be biased by the range of subject areas covered for other clients. They are not usually considered reliable enough for attitudinal/strategic (knowledge, attitudes and behaviour) type research.
   
• Design and incorporate a statistically reliable sampling plan into DFO’s surveys to represent Canadians living in coastal areas. Although a minority within the Canadian population, this target group is critical to DFO initiatives and policy, especially for surveys about Fisheries Renewal. Feedback from coastal area respondents could then be properly analyzed and compared.

Suggested Future Studies

• Presently, quantitative POR is too scattered and omnibus surveys are not an appropriate vehicle for conducting strategic studies. Integrated and ad hoc instruments for DFO public opinion research are needed. Three areas may be considered as good opportunities for conducting quantitative POR:
   
• A general baseline national survey on Canadians’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors (KAB) on issues related to DFO’s mandate and priorities (see major themes presented later);
   
• Targeted surveys, delving in greater depth into aspects critical for the success of DFO’s priorities. These specific and detailed surveys would give DFO the required information for guiding targeted actions and initiatives (see suggestions presented later);
   
• Communications surveys aimed at measuring the impact of communications from DFO and other departments or agencies linked to DFO issues (using the common measurement tool developed by PWGSC).

General Baseline National Survey of DFO Priorities

• DFO's need for strategic quantitative information in itself is enough to justify an annual survey on Canadians’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors (KAB) regarding issues related to its mandate and key priorities. This annual survey should also include some metrics to help characterize the target audience and guide the communication plan. The outcomes of this major national survey would be:

1. Obtain measurements on critical public opinion aspects in order to provide DFO with an integrated and coherent picture/framework to understand the general public, trends and response to government policies.

2. Determine views of the general public towards the Department and its performance.

3. Demonstrate which public KAB and perceptions have relevance for which departmental priorities and related communications plans -- e.g. the Oceans Action Plan and and Communication Plan -- including targeting and positioning avenues.

4. Identify the main regional/target group gaps and specificities.

5. Set priorities to improve the relationship between DFO and Canadians.

• Because DFO has three distinct target groups (general public living inland, living in coastal areas and stakeholders), this annual survey should be based on a sampling design which allows sufficient representativity and numbers for each. As mentioned before, we think DFO should consider designing and applying a standardized sampling plan consistently across quantitative studies.
   
• Below is a list of topics/themes that the KAB survey may include.
  
  Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors
   

1. Problems/main issues with fisheries and oceans (open-ended)

2. Personal concern and why feeling concerned/not concerned

3. Perception of oceans, oceans problems and oceans conservation issues

4. Perception of endangered species/species at risk

5. Perception of overfishing, efforts to fight overfishing and fish restoration efforts

6. Perception of the effects of some predators (such as seals) on fish

7. Perception of offshore oil-drilling

8. Perception of international governance

9. Perception of aquaculture

10. Perception of the CCG

11. Perceived health of … and perceived trends

12. Importance of specific types of habitats and marine life

13. Impact of warnings on fish contamination and overfishing on fish consumption

14. Trade-offs worth taking related to conservation and the environment

15. Environmental and economic attitudes

Department

1. Awareness of department/agency primarily responsible for…

2. Familiarity with the Department

3. Attitudes towards the Department

4. Image of the Department

5. Suggestions for DFO focus in the next 5 years (open-ended)

Mission and Priorities

1. What DFO’s priorities are perceived to be and level of priority it should attach to them (what DFO does vs. should do)¹

2. How DFO has been/is effective in dealing with its priorities¹

3. Balance between sustainable development and economic growth

4. Level of support and general policy preferences

5. Awareness of actions/measures taken

6. Principles and values associated with DFO’s policies (what they are/what they should be)

7. Budget and resources

8. Scientific integrity

9. Areas of scientific concern

10. Regulation, enforcement and compliance

Communications

1. Interest in information related to:
   - Marine resources
   - Scientific studies conducted by…
   - Position of other countries
   - Etc.

2. Level of involvement and information regarding fisheries issues related to DFO’s key priorities

3. Confidence in sources of information about fisheries and oceans issues

4. Confidence in institutions and organizations dealing with fisheries and oceans issues

Targeted Surveys

• The purpose of these surveys is to provide DFO with an in-depth understanding on specific aspects or issues related to its key priorities. Each of these surveys may be seen as a KAB survey but specific to a priority and much more detailed than the general KAB survey.
   
• Some suggestions are presented below:

1. Coastal public views on specific fisheries and oceans issues

2. Fish eating habits and attitudes in Canada

3. Canadians views on oceans, oceans problems and oceans conservation issues

4. Fisheries and oceans literacy in Canada

5. Canadians’ views on aquaculture

6. Perception of the CCG and its role

7. Etc.

Communications Surveys

• Since 2003, changes to the management of advertising activities have been announced and are being gradually implemented. Some of these changes concern the pre-testing of advertising and post-campaign evaluations.

• Post-campaign research is required of all major advertising initiatives and of those that are horizontal in nature (involving more than one organization). Although pre-testing is likely (but not exclusively) to be done through qualitative techniques (including focus groups), post-campaign evaluations have to be conducted through quantitative techniques (including telephone surveys), because the impact of advertising will be measured using the Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool (ACET).

• The ACET consists of a series of standardized questions to be included at the beginning of a post-campaign questionnaire. In addition to these core questions, DFO can add its own questions.

top of page

APPENDIX 1

Summary of POR Qualitative Data

In total, 7 DFO-related qualitative POR studies (2004-2005) were reviewed. Major findings for each of these studies are summarized in the following pages.

1. Ingraham Trail Lakes Fisher Opinion Survey (March 2005 – Datapath Systems)
    
2. Focus Group Research: Canada’s Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing - European Attitudes (March 2005 – Environics).
    
3. Qualitative Findings from Focus Group Discussions on the Communications of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Strategic Plan and Sustainable Development (March 2005 – Pollara).
    
4. Qualitative Research Exploring Canadians' Perceptions, Attitudes and Concerns towards Aquaculture (February 2005 – Créatec).
    
5. Focus Groups Research:  Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing - Domestic Attitudes (February 2005 – Environics).
    
6. A presentation to the Government of Canada Inter-Departmental Group on Smart Regulation: Topline findings from Focus Group Research (conducted for federal partnering departments, including DFO) (December 1, 2004 – The Strategic Counsel).
    
7. Qualitative Research for Strategic Plan Development (March 2004 – Créatec).

top of page

1. Ingraham Trail Lakes Fisher Opinion Survey (March 2005 – DataPath systems)

Major Findings:

• Caution: Because the number of completed interviews was so low (N=40), findings cannot be generalized.
   
• About 4/10 perceived a decline in fish stocks.
   
• 6/10 were concerned about the future of fish stocks.
   
• Many comments were made on the need for greater enforcement.

top of page

2. Focus Group Research: Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing European Attitudes (March 2005 – Environics)

Major Findings:

Fisheries

• People held strong historical and traditional ties to fishing, especially in Spain and Portugal.
   
• There was general awareness of scarcer or disappearing fish stocks and fishery job losses.
   
• Concern emerged over ocean pollution affecting the survival and health of fish stocks, more so in Stockholm and Vigo.
   
• Fish were eaten because of health benefits and taste. However, fish consumption presented a range of obstacles: it was more expensive than meat, time-consuming to prepare, farmed salmon was thought to lack taste compared to wild salmon and may be unsafe to eat.
   
• People saw a growing role for the European Union (EU) in fisheries issues. When quotas are cut, jobs are lost and fish disappear. There was a tendency to see national governments as powerless against the EU bureaucracy.
   
• Most saw major challenges stemming from shrinking fish stocks, leading to loss of jobs and revenue. The causes were seen as combination of: fishing vessel owners too fixed on profit, too much consumer demand for fish, EU and national government mismanagement, overfishing by various countries, pollution killing stocks, and new technology facilitating more efficient and larger catches.
   
• There was some acknowledgement that their own country shared some responsibility.

Overfishing

• It was a widespread belief that overfishing puts certain fish stocks at risk.

• Overfishing was seen as a threat to the global ecosystem and also as a conservation issue.

• Rogue vessels flying "flags of convenience" were considered a big part of the problem, plus their own countries.

• An unprompted desire was expressed for a balance to be struck between the economy and the environment (sustainable development).

• Overfishing was seen as a national or international problem, depending on location. In Stockholm and Vigo, it was more of an international conservation issue, while in Aveiro, Lisbon and Boulogne it was considered more of a local or national economic issue.

• High awareness of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) only occurred in Vigo.

• Often, people had an initial misconception that overfishing meant foreign trawlers fishing illegally within their country's EEZ.

• There was, however, a universal understanding in all locations that fish had no boundaries, and that the activities within and outside EEZs had an effect on global fish stocks.

• People in Boulogne, Lisbon and Stockholm did not understand the impact on their countries of overfishing off the Canadian coast, while those in Aveiro and Vigo had better understanding.

Role of governments

• People tended to hold a negative view about the performance of their national governments in handling the fisheries issue, and neglecting long-term issues and challenges for short-term political and economic gains.

• The EU was seen to be the level of government with the most responsibility.

• One common criticism of the EU was that it did not or could not always consider the specific needs of each country.

• Overall, there was a general understanding that national governments and the EU managed the fishery by: establishing quotas, levying fines for exceeding quotas, shortening the season for certain species and restricting the types of nets allowed.

• Some wondered how these policies were enforced.

Attitude towards Canada's role

• There was little or no awareness of Canada’s activities with regard to international overfishing, except for stakeholders in Stockholm and Vigo, where awareness was quite high.

• The DFO Background Document sparked various reactions. Many were surprised at the size of Canada's fishing industry, which employed so many.

• Most were surprised that 30% of all fish caught in world is believed to be illegal, unregulated or unreported.

• Some were suspicious of Canada’s motives in taking a high profile. Some thought Canada was trying to extend its EEZ to 100% of the Grand Banks.

• Some assumed Canada was also guilty of overfishing (and had fished out its cod stocks).

• People thought Canada had the power to take action because it was not part of a large union.

• Canada's image as a country was generally very positive, and the country was seen as modern, democratic, and peaceful.

• However, there was mixed reaction to Canada as a leader. Some felt Canada should be an equal partner with others, and some offered Canada praise for taking the initiative.

Views on NAFO

• Stakeholders were generally aware of NAFO, but not the general public, although many suspected some type of organization existed.

• People wanted to know who the members of NAFO were and also what happened to non-members who tried to fish in the NRA.

• Overall, the general public assumed NAFO regulations were too weak and not enforced aggressively enough.

• The idea that violating vessels would be punished by their home countries was considered open to abuse, with penalties that were too lenient. Most agreed that a fine of 5000 Euros for overfishing was ridiculously low.

• To deter overfishing, the majority believed that the punishment must "fit the crime" or be greater than the value of illegally caught fish. Harsher suggestions included: jail sentences for owners and licence suspensions for a specified time. In France, there was a focus on the importance of quick follow-through on punishments. In addition, there was some support for punishments directed at the owners of offending vessels and/or the decision-makers, and not the fishers who work on-board.

Terminology

• "Sustainable development" had very positive connotations and was well-understood. Many said it should be the principle underpinning any global fisheries policy. The official definition was almost always approved.

• "Fisheries management" was associated with economic and quota management of resources and with multilateral bodies setting common rules.

top of page

3. Qualitative Findings from Focus Group Discussions on the Communications of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Strategic Plan and Sustainable Development (March 2005 – Pollara)

Major Findings:

DFO Awareness and Understanding

• People had difficulty thinking beyond fish when considering resources associated with DFO.
   
• In the east, concerns were dominated by overfishing issues with the hope that oil can replace fishing as a future resource.
   
• In the west, the top issue was depletion of the BC wild salmon. Other concerns emerged about "fish farming" and its effect on the environment, as well as conflicts between various levels of governments, politicians and scientists, and fishermen and Aboriginal groups.
   
• There was general agreement that the work of DFO is important.
   
• On both coasts, enforcement was considered the most important DFO role, and was seen to be lacking by people in the east.

DFO Vision

• There was general support for the new DFO vision, but it was stronger in the east where people considered it long overdue.
   
• There was also general support for the concept of sustainable development, regardless of people's level of understanding or familiarity with the term. It was questioned by some because it was seen as unquantifiable, and the balance needed for a long-term outcome was seen as hard to predict or anticipate.
   
• In the balance between conservation, protection and development, many prioritized conservation and protection.
   
• Overall, there was general support for enforcement of the rules and regulations, with concerns about how enforcement would be carried over to the concept of sustainable development.
   
• There was also general support for the messages contained in the DFO materials shown, with concerns and cynicism in the east over perceived past government inaction.
   
• Most people said they worried about the lack of detail regarding enforcement and regulations related to sustainable development.
   
• Many were confused about jurisdictions over "waters" and related resources. While most understood that oceans and coastlines were federal, they were unclear about freshwater and water safety. In the east, partnerships between DFO and stakeholders were important relationships needed to deal with issues related to overlapping jurisdictions.
   
• References to more background information on the website was generally reassuring, accessible if they wanted answers.
   
• Statements about government commitments like the Oceans Action Plan lacked familiarity and substance.
   
• There was agreement that ocean and resource management is a "global" issue in which Canada can play only a small role.
   
• There was some confusion about the connection between water safety and travel and the larger goal of sustainable development. Many were also confused about the Canadian Coast Guard and its jurisdiction.

Communications

• Any unspecific "stakeholder" references raised a great deal of concern. Who were they, and were they Canadian? Some were suspicious of unnamed "partners".
   

• Participants appreciated the inspirational tone of "generations to come".
   

• Except for participants in Victoria, specific mention of Aboriginal communities was considered exclusive. Instead, people thought policies should be focused on "all Canadians".
   

• "Managing" was generally seen as an appropriate way to describe the DFO mandate, with some cynicism in the east.
   

• References to "balance" helped clarify the goal of sustainable development, but this was questioned in the east.
   

• Most saw a scientific approach as appropriate. "Developing new technologies" was seen to be a positive phrase, consistent with science messages.
   

• Many were unfamiliar with the term "mariner".
   

• In the east, "key harbours" was seen as exclusive because it did not involve all Canadians.
   

• People wanted more information about DFO's various commitments and strategies in media releases, but the Website was reassuring because it provided more detailed information.

top of page

4. Qualitative Research Exploring Canadians' Perceptions, Attitudes and Concerns towards Aquaculture (February 2005 – Créatec)

Major Findings:

Meaning of "Aquaculture"

• There was generally low awareness and understanding about aquaculture, but pockets of familiarity emerged in the coastal areas.
   

• People had many uncertainties about what aquaculture meant: it had no resonance for some, was synonymous with fish-farming for many, and people were generally pleasantly surprised to learn it includes plants and shellfish.
   

• People's first impression was that aquaculture was part of the fishing industry, but when probed, they also thought it could be part of the farming industry.
   

• A few used the term "aqua-farming".
   

• Aquaculture can be positioned as a unique industry.
   

• However, negative perceptions dominated the discussions, along an increasing continuum from east to west.
   

• Deep emotions surfaced in all groups because aquaculture was seen as a fast-moving industry, under no one’s control.
   

• People expressed important concerns about food and environmental safety.

• Overall, aquaculture had high involvement and personal relevance, and participants were highly receptive to positive information.

Impressions of the Industry

• Most saw aquaculture as a new and growing industry, which was still finding its way, but which has tremendous potential.

• Some wanted Canada to become a world leader in aquaculture.

• Negative views emerged about its key players: business did not care, government was passive, the industry was poorly regulated and somewhat out of control, and there was uncontested negative media coverage. People wondered who was protecting the consumer?

• Many doubts, fears and uncertainties outweighed the benefits. Food and environmental safety, (highly inter-related in people’s minds) were connected to many issues, such as: farm operations; diseased/escaped fish, food fed to fish, regulatory issues, the impact on traditional fisheries, potentially unknown consequences (with a frequent link to mad cow disease or genetic contamination), and Atlantic salmon in the Pacific.

• The most positive views included: the industry's tremendous potential, the employment it creates, it provides a renewable, predictable and viable food source, and helps replenish wild stocks (is a practical response to overfishing).

• For benefits to have influence, safety concerns (both environmental and food) must be addressed first.

DFO Challenges

• Participants identified the following main challenges for DFO:

• Public acceptance, based on truthful and honest information (there was some mistrust of DFO on both coasts).

• A wide range of environmental concerns.

• A regulatory framework.

• Public confidence in DFO.

• Health and food safety concerns.

• The impact on traditional/commercial fishing.

Main Expectations of Government

• Participants mainly wanted reassurance from the government, and a get-tough stance about regulating and enforcing safety and environmental standards.

• People wanted DFO to take leadership and responsibility. There was a need to know its guiding values and principles, especially related to personal safety and the perceived lack of industry regulations.

• There was a strong need for the current information gap to be filled, to help people form an opinion beyond the current media coverage.

• Participants thought the government should educate the public, providing scientific proof and balanced information from both DFO and independent studies.

• The most relevant information focused on: food and environmental safety, labeling and regulatory issues, and the guiding principles of government action.

• The most relevant ways to inform the public included: at point-of-purchase, plus a range of mass media outlets.

Regulations

• People wanted strong government intervention.

• Perceptions of the current aquaculture situation: it was a new, fast-moving industry, either under-regulated or with outdated regulations. If regulations existed, they were not enforced.

• People thought aquaculture needed labels and standards similar to those existing for chicken, beef, or milk.

• People had clear expectations about how the industry should be regulated. Step #1: conduct impact studies, and seek lessons from other countries; Step #2: establish an independent arm’s length regulatory body; Step #3: develop a regulatory process (decide who should be involved, what to regulate, and include monitoring, inspection, enforcement, and marketing…)

• Standards for aquaculture held strong appeal: having no standards carried risk.

• A "national framework" with regionally-developed, administered, regulated and enforced standards would likely garner strong support. However, there was mixed reaction to the idea of "national" standards.

• Standards should: (1) be the same as for farmed animals, with inspections, monitoring and spot checks, (2) include food safety regulations (e.g., feed practices, genetic modification guidelines, etc.) and (3) include environmental regulations (e.g., carrying capacity guidelines, fish size, dead fish, etc.).

• Some suggested: using incentives to go beyond the minimum standards, educating and licensing fish farmers, and having tough penalties to make regulations effective.

Food Safety

• The overall consensus was that fish was generally safe to eat.

• However, food safety was one of the most salient issues, and a perceived key challenge for DFO, mainly connected with aquaculture.

• There was a perceived high inter-dependence between food safety and environmental safety measures. To be credible, both should be addressed simultaneously.

• Differences between farmed or wild salmon were not sought at the point-of-purchase. Only a handful of groups held a strong preference for wild salmon (Aboriginal people and those in BC). While reasons to buy and consume farmed or wild salmon were not very different, feelings for or against each were not equal.

• There was a clear perceptual bias against farmed salmon mainly because it was seen as "unnatural", while wild salmon was considered: to be a better quality, tastier, healthier, or more nutritional (comparisons with chicken and beef were sometimes used as a form of self-reassurance.)

• Despite a positive perception of fish as food, most participants were concerned about the consumption of both the wild and farmed varieties, but farmed fish had a stronger negative impact than wild. Sometimes conflicts became denial when buying fish, as people hoped what they had heard was not true.

• People want and can be reassured. For a strong majority, both farmed and wild salmon had relatively low PCB levels. Only a minority would avoid eating farmed salmon because its chemical content was higher than wild. Only a minority thought the impact of PCBs and other chemical contaminants could be reduced by a particular cooking method.

• A strong majority believed Health Canada data that both wild and farmed salmon were safe to eat.

• Receptivity to labeling was very high, but attitudes towards the Canada Inspected logo were mixed.

Communications

• People personally connected with aquaculture through food and environmental safety.

• Negative views far outweighed the many perceived benefits.

• People’s concerns (mainly safety) must be addressed first for benefits to have a chance to play an influential role.

• Deep emotions, doubts, fears and disturbing conclusions were drawn from negative media coverage, along with the current information gap, with "mad cow" implications.

• Most people were unsatisfied with the current state of the industry and how the government manages it.

• People did not trust the key industry players, who were thought to be driven by the dollar and did not care about the consumer (aquaculture and commercial fishers).

• Without information, participants assumed the worst and tended to mistrust DFO. Yet, many were hopeful about the industry's future and thought Canada could be a world leader.

• People showed a readiness to change their views and form a more balanced opinion, but were seeking reassurance. They did not want to be manipulated.

• Aquaculture could be positioned as a unique industry.

• "Aqua-farming" may have more resonance than "aquaculture".

top of page

5. Focus Groups Research:  Canada's Strategy for International Fisheries Governance and to Combat Global Overfishing - Domestic Attitudes (February 2005 – Environics)

Major Findings:

Fisheries

• There was a firm attachment to the notion of a healthy, sustainable fishery.

• The general public's attitude was underestimated by those in coastal communities.

• The perceived major challenges facing fisheries included both environmental and conservation issues. Overfishing and shrinking stocks were consistently mentioned, plus risks from aquaculture, and pollution.

• The importance of fisheries to Canada as a whole was very widely appreciated, but some were surprised to learn the economic importance of fisheries.

• While most were resigned to the idea that primary (resource-based) industries like fisheries could stagnate or decline, hope still existed.

Overfishing

• There were almost universal 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 some of this blame.

• There is a want/need for balance between the economy and environment. While the general public was concerned and emotional about unemployment rates, they also saw overfishing as a threat to the global eco-system.

• There was a widely-held misconception that overfishing is really about foreign vessels fishing illegally in Canadian waters. The fact that the problem relates more to what happens in international waters was not well understood.

DFO efforts

• Most general public participants had no idea what DFO was doing about overfishing, but assumed it must be inadequate since the problem was worsening.

• There was general support for a DFO diplomatic strategy that can be enforced, and a perception that Canada must work with international organizations, scientists and other countries for lasting change.

• Awareness of Canadian diplomatic efforts with regard to overfishing and to NAFO's existence was almost nil.

• Concerns were expressed about whether or not Canada’s own legal and illegal fishing were contributing to the problem.

• Stakeholders were more concerned that a stronger focus on global overfishing could divert resources away from domestic enforcement or other important programs.

Canada's Strategy

• There was universal support for making the principle of sustainable development the centrepiece of Canada’s global strategy on international overfishing.
   

• There was also general agreement that Canada needs to take the lead and be seen to be acting out of concern for the global fishery, not just self-interest.

• Considerable support emerged for:

• Involving other government departments in any overfishing strategy (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Environment Canada).

• Taking a harder line and enforcing regulations in international waters.

• Participants expressed a strong need to know about enforcement and penalties against those who overfish. The perceived lack of punishment was very disconcerting.

• Stakeholders were the most likely to favour strong action, but felt there were dangers to Canada if it acted alone without allies, and saw international partnerships or alliances as critical to Canada’s success.

• The possibility of retaliation in the form of economic sanctions against Canada was considered, but in Alberta and BC, people noted we have already withstood US actions on softwood lumber and beef exports.

• Overall, little support emerged for Canada taking unilateral action. However, there was general agreement that potential advantages must be weighed against potential retaliation.

Communications

• Educating the general population in Canada and Europe was suggested as an important part of any overfishing solution: enforcement, diplomacy and education.

• The general public was receptive to messages about progress, what other countries are doing, who Canada’s allies are and what kinds of penalties can be meted out to offenders.

• Most appreciated learning about Canada’s actions to-date, but some were unreceptive to DFO messaging due to negative attitudes towards government.

• Care must be taken when using numbers, to avoid creating negative impressions or confusion. For example, the reference to only eight citations of foreign vessels was consistently seen as sign of weak policy and caused much frustration. Also, financial numbers need context and large amounts should be clearly and simply explained. (For example: the $45 million strategy evoked mixed reaction).

top of page

6. A presentation to the Government of Canada Inter-Departmental Group on Smart Regulation: Topline findings from Focus Group Research (December 1, 2004 – The Strategic Counsel)

Note that this was an inter-departmental study with DFO as a partner. This federal research project focused on Smart Regulation broadly. DFO initiatives linked with the federal Smart Regulation agenda include modernization of the fish habitat management program, aquaculture and the regulation of marine research employing seismic air guns.

Major Findings:

Awareness and Understanding

• There was very low understanding of the current Canadian regulatory environment.

• The perceived intent of regulations was to protect "the public interest," with negativity often rooted in the enforcement or execution of regulation.

• On balance, the regulatory system was viewed as effective with both positive and negative impacts on Canadians and Canadian businesses with regard to: encouraging or discouraging investment, business growth, international competitiveness and innovation, as well as protecting Canadians exposure to risk.

• While there was no awareness of "Smart Regulation," a select few ventured it referred to an approach that was more strategic, more outcome-based, more cohesive or coherent, evolving or adaptable, or more holistic. "Smart" was NOT seen as synonymous for deregulation, but tended to be perceived as meaning more regulation rather than less. Also, the French translation "Réglementation intelligente" was problematic.

• The concern was that "SMART" could mean more, not less, regulation. The term "SMART" was considered somewhat cliché, and raised questions as to whether the term was an acronym. Some wondered what it was before – stupid, dumber, worse?

• The notion of sustainability was not commonly understood. Thematics of interest to DFO are that stakeholders tended to support process-oriented directions, such as integrated management, and smart regulation. Environmental concerns and implications also figured prominently in participants’ comments and there was support for giving increased weight to environmental considerations in setting regulatory policy.

Regulatory Strategy

• The current regulatory strategy was more of a background issue, with no urgent public demand for change.

• On balance, Canada was positively viewed as more regulated than other industrialized nations.

• After discussion, most supported the need for a broader review of the regulatory system.

• Core values underpinning any new regulatory approach include: safety, being in the public interest, fair, efficient, cost-effective, reliable, cooperative, streamlined, transparent, measurable, accountable, adaptable, evolving, competitive, innovative, and consultative with public dialogue.

• Critical regulatory areas for greater or continuing federal oversight include: (1) health, drugs and medications, (2) food products and labeling, (3) the environment, particularly air and water quality/treatment, (4) transportation, mainly air and roads, (5) natural resource management, especially fisheries, mines, forestry, oil and gas, and (6) biotechnology, especially related to GM foods and cloning.

• There was no strong interest in greater harmonization with the U.S., but people thought best practices could be adopted and information-sharing between jurisdictions could be improved.

Communications

• It was considered important to strike balance of social, environmental and economic benefits in communications.

• It would be best to avoid superlatives, such as "21^st century," "world class," "modern" and "fast-changing" which created resistance and cynicism.

top of page

7. Qualitative Research for Strategic Plan Development (March 2004 – Créatec)

Major Findings:

Main impressions of DFO

• Most general public and Aboriginal participants were unaware of DFO, but stakeholders were knowledgeable. Even so, people were not indifferent.
   
• There was a strong impression that DFO lacked focus or real commitment to any issue.
   
• Confusion existed about DFO's perceived role and too numerous responsibilities, but fish or fish-related issues (i.e., habitat, conservation, quotas) were seen as a distinctive competency.
   
• Due to a perception of a scattered mandate and limited funding or resources, DFO was seen as a large not powerful bureaucracy.
   
• Overall, the general public valued research and science, but stakeholders were angry over cutbacks.
   
• The most positive impressions of DFO were connected to: DFO research and studies, the enforcement of fish quotas, the management of marine resources, conservation efforts re fish and fish habitat, the establishment of standards or policies and regulations, some dedicated DFO staff, Coast Guard search and rescue operations, maintaining the sovereignty of Canada's coastline and maintaining Canada's waterways, a progressive attitude relative to other GoC departments, and recent attempts by DFO to improve the situation for First Nations people.
   
• The most negative impressions of DFO involved: poor enforcement with regard to over-fishing, being under-funded, the perceived lack of leadership or political will and influence in Ottawa except by big money, poor enforcement for pollution (especially caused by fish farms), the lack of research/funding and conflicting research, poor conflict resolution with Aboriginal people, the lack of consultation with local communities and industries, unemployment in fishery communities, bureaucracy and red tape, a perceived lack of focus or vision and no clear long-term strategy, over-regulation and enforcement inconsistent with commercial enterprises, and the high cost of sport and commercial fishing licenses.

DFO challenges

• Participants identified the following main challenges:
   

• Declining fish stocks was the overriding concern.

• Over a dozen specific environmental challenges were named, ranging from conservation, to the affects of forestry, agriculture, climate change, disease, habitat destruction, invasive species and endangered species.

• Other challenges included: the need for good science, funding, the need for collaboration, dealing with fishermen/Aboriginal fisheries, and the role of the Coast Guard.

• People also mentioned DFO leadership and jurisdiction, and improving DFO's negative image.

• The general public had difficulty understanding DFO language (e.g., terms such as: aquaculture, sustainable development, environmental sustainability, and sustainable use.) People voiced a desire for "plain language", instead of confusing obscure "gobbledy-gook". Most agreed the best term for conservation was the word itself: "conservation".
   
• "Sustainable development" was acceptable as a concept and underlying principle, but the term was seen as cliché and political double-speak.
   
• The term "broader oceans management" was not well-received, but people liked the idea of DFO moving to include the oceans (as a place where fish live).
   
• Overall, participants preferred terms such as "stewards" of or "advocates" for fish rather than the term "management".

DFO Vision

• The general public generally didn't know what DFO was doing.
   
• The issue of whether DFO should focus more on fisheries or on a broader oceans management approach was mainly irrelevant except to stakeholders.
   
• Consistently, participants favoured long-term environmental emphasis over short-term socio-economic goals. Some wanted DFO to work with other pro-environment government departments.
   
• Oceans or freshwater habitat issues were seen as inter-related, and people had no idea which was more serious. Most wanted DFO to be responsible for both, but some wanted DFO to share responsibilities with federal/provincial departments, indicating a low awareness that DFO was already doing so.
   
• The main suggested DFO priority was fish and their natural habitat. Some saw an animal welfare type of stance for DFO, where "fish" was essentially the generic term for all marine species and their habitat, along with habitat or species stewardship.
   
• Other priorities included: (1) the whole water environment, including damage from oil spills, harsh chemicals, wild-life protection, and climate change effects; and (2) the Great Lakes and inland lakes, including water quality and healthy fish.
   
• People also wanted increased communication between DFO and the regions, especially to explain policies or decisions, plus decentralized decision-making, which included cooperative partnerships between DFO and business, Aboriginal communities, cities, and other countries.
   
• DFO's set of goals generally elicited a positive reaction. But the phrase "fisheries and fish farms" provoked discussion about their environmental damage, and the phrase "safe and accessible waterways" created confusion since most were unaware that the Coast Guard was part of the DFO mandate.

Decision-Making

• Overall, it seemed like DFO had no clear overriding vision to consistently inform decisions.
   
• The main impression about DFO decision-making was that DFO did not manage their decisions well.
   
• The idea of a participatory approach to decision-making generated some ambivalence. Some felt that sharing decisions could weaken an already weak department, and some were concerned about leadership, and wanted someone to make the tough decisions.
   
• There was consistent approval of consultations with local stakeholders, as long as 3 criteria were met: (1) include all stakeholders, (2) ensure the process is transparent and monitored, and (3) to get relevant local input, have consultations before decisions are made, during the research, planning or policy development phases.
   
• Stakeholders tended to support process-oriented directions, such as integrated management, and smart regulation. They gave general approval to an integrated management approach, where DFO worked with other federal, provincial/territorial and local departments and agencies to harmonize the myriad of rules and regulations and to share responsibilities.

Science and Research

• Science and research was one of the main DFO activities perceived as positive. It was valued highly by most participants, and people generally wanted to see these functions increase.
   
• But there was a strong perception that science expertise was becoming less important and carried less weight at DFO because: (1) of the influence of stakeholders with political sway and money, and (2) severe cuts to both the research budget and function.
   
• Participants held varied attitudes towards the credibility of such scientific know-how.
   
• Overall, there was strong support for a collaborative process used with science information, in addition to: (1) increased funding for science research, and (2) more input from experts. Ideally, research would encompass studies from DFO, universities, as well as the experiential expertise of local fishers.

Risk management

• Overall, to most participants, the concept of "risk" seemed almost incompatible with the expected DFO role, and needs to be used with care.
   
• People thought DFO should take zero risks with fish or fish habitat but extraordinary risks on behalf of fish or fish habitat.
   
• People wanted DFO to take courageous actions to better protect fish or fish habitat: (1) by confronting foreign (and other) over-fishers, and (2) by making potentially unpopular political decisions.

Aboriginal Issues

• Aboriginal participants were similar to the general public in their low awareness of fisheries issues, and in their attitudes and ideas about most topics.
   
• Most participants thought Aboriginal people should not be allowed to fish without limits due to declining fish stocks. There was support for the principal of unlimited fishing if it was not based on commercial factors.
   
• While most had not heard of the Marshall decision, participants acknowledged that the federal government was responsible for managing Aboriginal fisheries. Some thought that free access with no control, conservation or regulation was probably what was happening.
   
• Mixed reaction emerged to the idea of the government being obliged to create social and economic opportunities for Aboriginal people in fishing and habitat management, even among Aboriginals.
   
• Mixed reactions also surfaced regarding the perceived fairness of the treatment of Aboriginals, including by Aboriginals.
   
• Overall, people (including Aboriginal participants) generally agreed that providing direct funds was not the best way to help Aboriginal people. However, educational funding was generally well-liked.
   
• Aboriginal participants wanted increased communication with DFO, along with more consultation and more information shared by the Department.

Canadian Coast Guard

• People held very positive impressions of the CCG. However, most were unaware that DFO was responsible, but stakeholders generally knew this.
   
• Most saw the CCG as a law enforcement agency, but some thought it was a civilian organization because of its search and rescue operations.
   
• Nine services were identified overall, but most people were aware only of two: (1) search and rescue was the most important, and was mentioned in most groups, and (2) patrolling, monitoring and guarding Canadian waters, including coastlines and borders, against drug runners or human cargo traffickers.
   

• Ice-breaking, boating laws and navigational aids, enforcement of NWPA, and weather observation were infrequently mentioned.

• The CCG was perceived to lack the resources it needed (ie., boats, equipment and manpower) to fulfill its various roles, so people were reluctant to add the Arctic and public security functions.

Aquaculture

• There was low awareness and understanding of the term "aquaculture," but "fish farming" was understood.
   
• Overall, participants had no idea who was responsible for aquaculture, but most thought DFO should be. Some wanted DFO to work with other departments.
   
• A generally negative tone prevailed due to: (1) unfavourable publicity, mainly about PCB's in farmed salmon, (2) a perceived lack of positive public information, and (3) observed but unimpeded, unregulated environmental destruction, especially in the west.
   
• People perceived a wide range of advantages and disadvantages for aquaculture. The main advantage: it helps preserve natural stocks. The main disadvantage: food safety concerns and the negative environmental impact.
   
• Despite the negative tone, aquaculture was seen to have a future if the industry was improved and better-regulated, with better research and good science, long-term funding, and a whole new set of rules and regulations.

Species at Risk Act (SARA)

• People generally had low awareness of this piece of legislation, but most who had heard of it considered it ineffective (SARA was not in full force at the time of this study).
   
• While SARA was viewed as a good attempt to protect species, it was ineffective mainly because it was unenforceable and hard to evaluate.
   
• Most participants thought DFO should limit the fishing of certain species, but did not want DFO to increase the fishing of other species.

Offshore Drilling

• Overall, there was generally low awareness of offshore drilling, although some people had concerns about the effects on fish or fish habitat.
   
• When asked if they thought offshore oil or natural gas drilling had damaged the environment, many said yes. Some declared drilling had already harmed some species (whales) and would probably harm others. And there were those who worried about the unknown environmental impact on various species and habitat.
   
• Some in the east thought steps were being taken to minimize the impact of offshore drilling, while others were okay with drilling because they hadn't heard of any specific damage, "yet."

Communications

• On the whole, DFO issues were abstract and esoteric topics for most general public and Aboriginal segments, who saw fisheries and oceans as an environmental and ecological process rather than an economic one, and also one in which values were becoming more globally-oriented.
   
• Most participants possessed only a surface or simplistic understanding of fisheries and oceans issues, and had only general impressions, without any specific awareness or knowledge. Most wanted to rely on the opinions of experts. Thus, issues need to be simplified and explained in practical terms.
   
• In contrast, stakeholders were generally knowledgeable and well-informed, and in some cases, passionately involved.
   
• It became clear that reassurance is needed that someone (DFO) is committed, in charge, and taking care of Canada's future fish supply and marine ecosystems. The personal relevance of fisheries and oceans issues to most seemed to be based on emotional, ethical and environmental concerns.
   
• Most people seriously doubted that DFO had the resources, ability or political will to conserve, protect or improve fish stocks and fish habitats. But when DFO can visibly and clearly demonstrate a commitment to conservation and the improvement of fish stocks and healthier marine ecosystems, support will likely grow. The old adage of not just doing good, but being "seen to do good", applies here.
   

top of page

APPENDIX 2

Summary of POR Quantitative Data

In total, 4 DFO-related quantitative POR studies (2004-2005) were reviewed. Major findings for each of these studies are summarized in the following pages.

1. Global Overfishing Omnibus (June 2005 – Environics).
2. Seals Omnibus Report (February 2005 – Ipsos-Reid).
3. Canadian Coast Guard Omnibus Tables (August 2004 – Environics).
4. Aquaculture Omnibus Tables (March 2004 – Environics).

top of page

1. Global Overfishing Omnibus (June 2005 – Environics)

Major Findings:

• 53% were not aware of any actions that Canada has taken to stop overfishing in international waters. (Because of the misconception about what overfishing in international waters is, this result may be highly unreliable and underestimated).

• 82% said it is very important for Canada to take action to stop overfishing in international waters (again, this result may be highly unreliable). However, findings reveal a wide gap between awareness and importance which could be a signal of an important opportunity for communication.

• Concrete action to deter overfishing (57%) was clearly favoured over diplomatic channels (33%).

• Action to sustain the health of fish stocks (60%) was clearly favoured over action to sustain the fishing industry (30%), especially in Atlantic Canada (71% vs. 25%) and in BC (69% vs. 21%).

• Half (49%) of all Canadians were very personally concerned about the future of fish stocks, especially in BC (62%). Only 13% of Canadians were not concerned. Concern was highly correlated with age (highest of 61% among 60 +).

top of page

2. Seals Omnibus Report (February 2005 – Ipsos-Reid)

Major Findings:

• Overall, public opinion was divided on the issue of commercial seal hunting, even if carried out in a humane manner. However, strong opponents (28%) clearly outweighed strong approvers (19%), which suggests that any issue on commercial hunting has a natural tendency to develop into disapproval and needs strong justification to elicit resignation or approval.
   
• Because it is done under strict rules and with quotas to ensure the sustainability of the seal population, a majority (6/10) approved of the current federal seal hunting policy. However, this majority approval was "mild," not strong. In addition, results suggest that many Canadians (4/10) disapproved and that one quarter disapproved strongly. This response profile indicates that the arguments read to respondents were not convincing enough to make the seal hunting policy a low risk public opinion issue (note that the sustainability of some fish populations was not part of the arguments or conditions read).

top of page

3. Canadian Coast Guard Omnibus Tables (August 2004 – Environics)

Major Findings:

• Canadians clearly acknowledged the vital and critical role of the CCG, especially when related to security, safety, and enforcement.
   
• Protecting fish stocks from overfishing by foreign countries appears to be its raison d’être (40%), more so than providing ships to support Canadian security agencies (26%) or protection against potential terrorism (16%).
   
• Overall, findings confirm the positive image of the CCG and its instrumental value for DFO.

top of page

4. Aquaculture Omnibus Tables (March 2004 – Environics)

Major Findings:

• When thinking about food safety, fish was not a primary concern (7%). Beef (39%) and chicken (31%) were top-of-mind.
   
• There was some familiarity with the definition of aquaculture (53% overall, with BC the highest at 69%). However, for almost half (47%), the definition of aquaculture was a foreign or new concept. Compared to previous surveys, familiarity has significantly increased (39% in 2000).
   
• Canadians familiar with the definition of aquaculture were split and unsure in their confidence that fish-farming regulations protect the environment. Only 10% were very confident and 18% were not at all confident.
   
• There was a strong tendency to think there is too little regulation in fish farming (54%). Atlantic respondents were the most likely to think there is enough or too much regulation (49%).
   
• To create a favourable climate for the responsible development of aquaculture, science was believed to be very important (61%), more so than regulations (52%) and economic support (51%). Compared to previous surveys, support for all 3 actions has significantly improved.
   
• No single source of information was the most trusted by a majority of Canadians. Environmental organisations topped the list with only 37%, and the media were at the bottom with 8%. Compared to previous surveys, trust in the media as a source of information about aquaculture has significantly declined (21% in 2003) while trust in environmental groups has significantly increased (26% in 2003).
   
• Canadians tended to be confident about the safety of eating farmed salmon (61% vs. 31% not confident). However, only 22% were very confident, which is lower than the very confident rate about food products in general (30%). Females were less confident (57%) than males (66%).

1.  Will allow for quadrant analysis to guide future communications. [ return to text ]

Last updated : 2005-10-28

Important Notices