SALMONID ENHANCEMENT 61 



ship between these two groups. In effect, one advisory 

 group (to the board) advises another advisory group (to 

 the Ministers); each is concerned with important and 

 worthwhile issues, but their lines of responsibility are 

 awkward, causing some strain. 



To begin with, the program needs a special organiza- 

 tional structure for several reasons. One is that it is 

 funded separately by two governments and is account- 

 able to two Ministers. A second is that the nature of its 

 activities calls for different planning periods from most 

 Departmental functions. A third and related reason is 

 that it is mission-oriented toward a special set of pur- 

 poses. The success of the program in working single- 

 mindedly and effectively toward its goals can undoubt- 

 edly be attributed in large part to its separate budgeting 

 and staflfing arrangements. So, I conclude that the present 

 separate provisions for the enhancement program should 

 be maintained in the new agreement. I should add that I 

 nevertheless see a need for closer integration of enhance- 

 ment planning with habitat and fisheries management, as 

 I explain elsewhere. But this does not require merging the 

 enhancement organization with the rest of the Depart- 

 ment. Given the turmoil in the Department's organiza- 

 tion in recent years (described in Chapter 19), an addi- 

 tional restructuring would, for the time being, be disrup- 

 tive and damaging to morale. In Chapter 19 I suggest that 

 for the longer term these structural relationships be 

 reviewed in the broader context of the Department's 

 administrative organization. 



With its distinct mandate, budgets and staff, and dual 

 accountability, the program clearly needs a high-level 

 board, like the present Salmonid Enhancement Board, to 

 advise the two Ministers on the program's direction and 

 on how budgets .should be alkx:ated. The present board 

 appears to be well structured (with appropriate represen- 

 tation of governments and nongovernmental interests) 

 and efficient, so I propose no organizational changes. 



13. At least under the first temi of the new agreement, the 

 separate organizational structure for the enhancement 

 and aquatic inventor* program should be maintained, 

 as should the present structure of the enhancement 

 board. 



Changes are called for with respect to the task group, 

 however. I propose that it be replaced with a regionally 

 based public representative organization, with terms of 

 reference broadened to embrace habitat matters as well 

 as enhancement. The structure and organization of these 

 regional Fisheries Conservation Committees are 

 described in Chapter 17. 



Concluding Note 



The Salmonid Enhancement Program is both exciting 

 and challenging. Phase I has been well planned and 

 efficiently carried out, and the funds have been spent 

 carefully. Present information provides grounds for hope 

 that the returns will be satisfactory. 



But these are only expectations; the evidence of suc- 

 cess of the experiment is not yet in, and experience in 

 Canada and elsewhere indicates that predictions are 

 fraught with uncertainties. The message 1 want to convey 

 in this chapter is one of caution. The program should be 

 renewed with a modified mandate. But we should not 

 proceed vMth additional major works with uncertain 

 results until we have more tangible evidence of the suc- 

 cess of those already built. And we must begin to face up 

 to the obstacles to the program's success that I have 

 identified here, especially the threat to natural stocks 

 under present fishing patterns and the threat of dissipat- 

 ing the gains in further expansion of redundant fishing 

 capacity. 



