CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS 221 



actually seems to favour these fractionate 

 conditions within the industry. The resulting 

 frequent lack of consensus has repeatedly 

 seen D.F.O. officials making arbitrary regula- 

 tions that often are poorly thought out, 

 poorly implemented and on occasion having 

 no foundation in law.* 



But while the Department is often harshly criticized, it 

 does not bear the whole responsibility for unrewarding 

 consultations. 



Fishermen, user groups, etc. are themselves 

 not totally guiltless, if for nothing other than 

 manifestations of human nature such as 

 greed, lack of concern for the resource and 

 the aforementioned posturing on issues. 

 There is unquestionably a need to raise the 

 level of responsibility assumed by all 

 participants . . . .' 



Clearly, we have some distance to go to overcome the 

 present lack of confidence in the consultative process and 

 to create a system that will generate and channel con- 

 structive communications between the fisheries authon- 

 ties and the interested public. Bureaucratic resistance to 

 the often irksome task of consulting outsiders must be 

 overcome. The approach of private participants must 

 become less critical and self-serving, and more compro- 

 mising and constructive. These changes will take time 

 and effort. But they will be promoted by a suitable orga- 

 nization and procedures, and these need fundamental 

 reform. 



TOWARD IMPROVED CONSULTATION 



The present plethora of consultative bodies has 

 evolved over time through ad hoc responses to apparent 

 needs and circumstances, and consequently now lack 

 order and coherence. The Department has apparently 

 never sought professional advice on how to organize and 

 conduct public participation, so, not surprisingly, present 

 arrangements fail to satisfy the parties involved. 



The first requirement for improving the consultative 

 system is a coherent policy on the subject. The Depart- 

 ment should therefore articulate a general policy on the 

 issue of external consultation and advice. This should 

 take the form of a document for public circulation, out- 

 lining the Department's consultative structures and pro- 

 cedures and arrangements for participation." Meanwhile, 

 some guidelines and basic principles are called for. I 

 therefore recommend — 



1. The Department should articulate general policy and 

 procedures for effective consultation with the inter- 

 ested public. This should provide for the following: 



i) A consultative or advisory body should be 

 appointed to deal with each branch of fisheries 

 policy in which there is a distinct and focused 

 public interest. 



ii) Each consultative body should have clear, vvrit- 

 ten terms of reference to govern its deliberations 

 and a specified line of reporting and accountabil- 

 ity. 



ill) Members of coasultative bodies should be for- 

 mally appointed by the Minister or an oHicial 

 delegated by him for specific terms. They should 

 be reimbursed for the expenses they incur in 

 participating in meetings. 



iv) The membership of any consultative body 

 intended to provide advice on policies that 

 require balancing conflicting interests should 

 not include delegates who are answerable to the 

 interested groups. 



v) The number of members should be the minimum 

 required for balanced understanding of the 

 issues. 



vi) A Departmental official should be appointed as a 

 nonvoting member to each consultative group to 

 serve as its secretary and to provide information 

 and technical assistance. 



vii) Elach group should design and put in writing its 

 own procedural guidelines for conducting its 

 deliberatioas. 



viii) Minutes should be kept of all meetings and, 

 except for the record of deliberations that are 

 agreed to be confidential, they should be avail- 

 able to others. 



ix) Agendas should be circulated well in advance of 

 meetings, together with supporting documenta- 

 tion. 



x) Every consultative group should be responsible 

 for preparing a written report on its delibera- 

 tions at least annually. 



Other structural and procedural arrangements 

 (whether nominations for members should be solicited, 

 how chairmen are to be selected, who will draft agendas 

 and so on) will vary according to the responsibilities and 

 needs of diflferent groups. 



I emphasize the importance of periodic reporting. 

 Reports provide the essential medium of accountability 

 for a group's effort and conclusions, and help to focus 

 discussion at meetings. Reports are also needed to com- 

 municate conclusions and advice. Without this communi- 

 cation, the effort provides little more than therapy for 

 those involved. 



