|
July
2005 Community Dialogue Notes
::: Haida
Gwaii Marine Planning :::
Communities Fitting the Pieces Together
Hosted by the Haida Fisheries Program, Gwaii
Haanas
& World Wildlife Fund Canada
Contacts : Lynn Lee 557-4453 : John Farrell 559-2338 :
Russ Jones 559-8945
Cacilia’s Bed & Breakfast, Tlell
Thursday, July 28th, 2005
Disclaimer: Please
note that this is a paraphrased record of events. Any misrepresentation
in participants’ comments, questions, and/or responses is
unintentional.
Contents
Update on Marine
Planning Initiatives that Affect Haida Gwaii
Russ Jones – Haida
Fisheries Program Technical Director
Coastal First Nations involvement in marine
planning in British Columbia
People are quite familiar
with how First Nations and how Haida utilize the ocean. Most people
know that we were ocean going people and that we had large canoes, we
traveled thousands of miles, we went as far down as California and
other first nations – Tsimshian, Nuu-chal-nuth, etc.
– did the same. Most of our food came from the ocean
including species like black cod, which lives at a thousand foot
depths. Europeans were quite amazed that we knew black cod were there,
that we were fishing them and that we had the technology in place to
fish them. We utilized these resources and others that had no market in
Europe or which people didn’t even know were here. I think
people generally know that our use of the ocean is quite extensive and
we managed our use with other people – different clans here
on Haida Gwaii, as well as other groups like the Tsimshian in the
Prince Rupert area and the Nu-chal-nulth down on the west coast of
Vancouver Island.
There is another aspect to
our relationship to the ocean, we have quite a strong spiritual
connection, which is the way we feel about the ocean and the way we
feel about the marine resources, I think that is reflected in some
cases just by the way we talk about it. Our name for killer whale is
sgaana and sgaana also means supernatural being. Killer whales were
thought as the chiefs of the undersea world. Halibut and salmon also
had their own talents down in the ocean and people could actually do
transformations and turn from a person into a salmon and live with the
salmon people. There is this relationship between Haida and living
things and non-living things here on the island, which is quite
different from western society.
Another principle that Haida
use in their relationships is yah’guudang, which means
respect, and that respect applies to other people but it also applies
to other living things. You have to be respectful of all living things
because they might actually be a supernatural being or a person. People
weren’t on top and animals below – in the Haida
worldview animals could be higher than people and they could be
supernatural beings. If you did something disrespectful there could be
serious consequences.
There is another Haida
expressions, “the world is as sharp as the edge of a
knife” and I think one thing we might think about is what is
the difference between a live person and a dead person, it could be the
blink of an eye. If you are on the edge of a knife you could go off on
one side or the other, there is a balance that you have to follow in
your life.
There was an agreement worked
out a few years ago between the Turning Point Coastal First Nations and
the Government of Canada on trying to do things in a different way. The
Turning Point First Nations involves Haida, Tsimshian and also some
First Nations on the Central Coast. In 2002, the First Nations signed
an agreement with DFO to work together on marine use planning. This was
shortly after DFO released an Oceans Strategy plan – a plan
to do integrated planning over large ocean areas in British Columbia.
Over the past two years, there has been work done government to
government between those First Nations and Canada on how we might do
that. There is a preliminary framework that has been developed and
it’s at a stage where soon it will be going out and there
will be broader consultation with stakeholders on that overall process.
The planning area is called
the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). It looks
at quite a large area, it goes all the way from the north end of
Vancouver Island up to the Alaska border, and it’s more than
half of the whole coast of British Columbia. The Nisga’a have
a treaty with Canada so they are not directly involved at this point
but I think the plan is that they will decide how they will be involved
either in the First Nations process or in a multi-sector process.
There was an announcement at
the end of May by the Minister of Fisheries, Geoff Regan, about an
Oceans Action Plan. He developed five priority areas for Integrated
Management Planning in Canada and one of those five areas was this
PNCIMA area. Over the next two years the plan would be to develop these
integrated management plans under the Oceans Act. One thing to
recognize is that this is a very large area and there is going to be
some very broad brush planning that is going to happen.
In the framework that is
being developed so far there are two levels – one is a First
Nations planning process and other is a parallel, multi-stakeholder
process. For the First Nations processes, there would be a local Haida
process, another one in the Central Coast and another with the
Tsimshian, so there would be those local processes. Those First Nations
will come together and try to come up with some common plans or
objectives. For the multi-stakeholder process, it’s not clear
at this point whether it is going to be just at one large table that
deals with whole north coast.
At this point in time, I
don’t think there is anything laid out for local planning
processes, which could be an issue. What I believe is going to happen
is this framework is going to come out in a public floor discussion in
terms of does this process meet peoples expectations or the goals of
what integrated management planning is. Of course DFO has their ideas
laid out in the Oceans Strategy and also in the Oceans Action Plan.
From the Haida side there are three groups, the Council of the Haida
Nation, Skidegate Band Council and Old Massett Village Council.
Under the Oceans Action Plan
there is funding to move ahead with this. That’s the stage it
is at right now from the First Nations perspective, putting the funding
in place. As I understand it DFO has allocated funding for the
multi-sector side of it.
It is important to share
information and knowledge and talk about how this process will work and
if it meets our needs here. I think it is important for Haida and other
Island residents to get together and try to talk about common issues.
^
top
Norm Sloan
– Gwaii Haanas Parks Canada Marine Ecologist
What I wanted to do was give
you some context on the federal government’s position to do
with oceans management and national change, attitude and implementation
of new ways of thinking about the oceans.
In 1997, Canada passed its
Oceans Act and the idea behind the Oceans Act was a framework for
modern oceans management. The reason for the Oceans Act was an
acceptance that sectoral oceans management – that is
management of ocean resources and ocean issues by individual government
sectors – was not working for the nation. What the nation
needed was to re-evaluate how we think about oceans and how we might
manage ocean resources. The three principles of oceans management are:
- Sustainable development: meeting the current
generations needs without impairing the needs for future generations.
It is about thinking long term, thinking about unborn generations, it
is a different way and a more long-term way of thinking.
- Integrated management: bringing the different
sectors together. These different sectors would be First Nations but
also industry, non-government organizations (NGOs), coastal communities
and academia. It is an attempt to bring people together because we are
not succeeding in a lot of ocean environmental things.
- Precautionary approach: taking risk diverse
action, knowing that you have incomplete information but erring on the
side of caution when you make decisions about natural resource use.
Three main initiatives with Canada’s
Oceans Strategy:
- Better ocean governance through collaboration
with all sectors.
- Using integrated management with partners as
the implementation vehicle.
- Promoting public awareness of ocean issues.
In 2002, Canada passed its National Oceans
Strategy. In the intervening years the idea of an Oceans Strategy has
been gathering force although marine conservation in Canada has largely
been fishery management. The Fisheries Act is an ancient act, it is as
old as the nation, it goes back to 1867 and here we are with an Oceans
Act that was passed in 1997. We have a very long tradition of fisheries
management and the fishery management sector and a very short tradition
of a more innovative approach of bringing everyone together because we
know that fisheries management has not really worked for the nation, as
we all know by the cod collapse on the east coast.
In 2005, the government issued two things:
- Phase One Action Plan for the National Oceans
Strategy: this phase one is about twenty-five million dollars and we
have three oceans so they want to partition the money –
Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic. The decision in the Pacific was to go
with the PNCIMA (Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area).
- Federal Marine Protected Area Strategy:
provides Fisheries and Oceans Canada with a leadership role in
coordinating the development and implementation of a federal network of
marine protected areas.
There is a problem because the federal government
is involved in oceans management but they are not involved in land
management and some areas are crown land because they involve
watersheds that drain into the PNCIMA and are under provincial control.
There is a profound federal/provincial split at the shoreline. We need
to start thinking about integrating the land and sea, it makes enormous
sense for these islands but it is actually very important for PNCIMA
and the entire north coast. That is a major problem for oceans
management in this country; the federal and provincial governments have
to come together.
Also launched in 2005 was the National Marine
Protected Area Strategy and in that strategy DFO recognizes that there
are other federal agencies involved in marine conservation in Canada
and it is confusing for most people.
The Oceans Act had a Marine Protected Area
component as one of its main activities and also marine environmental
quality and integrated management.
One of the pilot Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is
the Bowie Seamount, off the west coast of Haida Gwaii. Canada has been
very slow at declaring Marine Protected Areas. In the Pacific we have
only one, which is the Endeavor Hot Vents. That was the first Marine
Protected Area federally created in Canada and now we have one in the
Atlantic too, the Sable Gully. DFO wants to get going with the Bowie
Seamount.
We have the National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) Act of Parks
Canada involved in marine area conservation, we have DFO becoming
involved through MPAs and aspiring to this in our region and then we
have Environment Canada involved using their National Wildlife Act to
create what they call a Marine Wildlife Area in the Scott Islands
group. That is because Environment Canada has a responsibility for
migratory birds and there are enormous seabird colonies there.
Generally speaking we have handed over the birds – marine
birds are not managed by DFO, they are managed by Environment Canada,
particularly the Canadian Wildlife Service. For citizens this becomes
very confusing – who’s doing what, how come you
guys aren’t working together, what’s going on? The
federal government was aware of national confusion and said we need to
get together as a federal group and have this National Marine Protected
Areas Strategy that was only launched in 2005.
We are at a very pioneering time in this nation
and in this region for marine conservation. Key decisions are being
made right now, it is a very exciting time but a time of enormous
uncertainty.
^
top
Lynn Lee – World Wildlife
Fund Canada Haida Gwaii Local Coordinator
The first time that we got together as an Island
community to talk about the sea around the Islands, Elliott Norse was
here and we talked about what needs the Islands’ community
had and what their aspirations were for marine planning, how we fit
into a process and where things were going. Until the Oceans Act and
the National Marine Conservation Areas Act, ocean management was pretty
much piecemeal and it is even now. Fisheries management is species by
species and we have different things like Rockfish Conservation Areas
and very species specific issues that we deal with, but we have not
taken the time to put that stuff together and try to work management,
science, local knowledge and traditional knowledge together into
something that works for local communities and local ecosystems.
What we heard at that first meeting was that the
people of Haida Gwaii really felt that we needed to have a local marine
plan that was driven by the communities that worked for conservation
but also for communities. I think it is because we, living here,
recognize that having healthy ecosystems is what builds healthy
communities. We need the marine ecosystems to be healthy; we need fish
out there that so our human communities are economically, culturally
and socially healthy as well. The question is how do you get there?
Conservation only works on a local level if the people of the
communities buy in. We need to figure out a solution together that
works for people and fish.
At the first meeting we had general discussions
about what were peoples issues, what they felt was really important,
what needed to be dealt with and this agreement that we needed a plan.
So then we got people together a second time and specifically hashed
out what issues are key to the islands, what are the things that we
agree on, what are the things that we don’t agree on, where
do we have to discuss and get more information so that we can have
effective dialogue about what the solutions might be. Following that
second meeting, I put together a compilation of what I have heard from
Islanders over the last five years. It is a range of opinions on
different issues, what the perspectives are on the Islands, where
people think we need to go and places where we find common ground.
There are issues like offshore oil and gas that
the Islands’ communities are pretty cohesive on, not
supporting oil and gas development and not supporting open net cage
salmon farming. Are there things we can do to fit those into regional
and federal planning processes? We have the Oceans Act and the
Fisheries Act that says conservation first but I think they are having
a hard time actually implementing them so that they work for local
places and Haida Gwaii. I think our job is to get together and figure
out how to help them get there, this is what we think you need to do in
order for us to maintain these healthy communities around the islands.
Since our last meeting, I have been trying to
pull together fisheries information because it is really hard to get
good fisheries data from outside DFO. Some of the information is shown
in the maps up on the walls. Parks Canada has been working on a series
of compilations that put together everything we know about different
parts of the marine ecosystem that is relevant to Haida Gwaii. They are
very comprehensive summaries about things that are known about marine
invertebrates, marine mammals and they are going to be a good base line
for us to start discussing what we want to see and what surrounds the
islands.
From this workshop I am hoping to hear from
people what the next steps are – how do we act on what local
people want to do for their marine environment, how do we find the
solutions and bring them to larger regional planning processes? We are
not sure what that is going to look like for Haida Gwaii. There is
going to be a First Nations Haida planning process but we also, as a
whole Islands community, need to get together and talk about what all
the communities on the Islands want to see, and where we can help guide
existing processes to address what is important for us. The regional
process may say Haida Gwaii is important but there still needs to be a
local plan that feeds into the larger picture so that we have something
that works for the Islands.
We are all here because we care about this place.
It is a very complicated place but there is so much knowledge on the
Islands and people that have such a passion for this place that I think
we can work together and figure out where to go from here. As an
Islands community, need to help define where we’re going and
not simply wait for the processes to come down from the federal and
provincial government then react to them. We do need to start a
conversation here about what is important to us and how we protect that
for the future.
^
top
Elliott Norse – Marine
Conservation Biology Institute President
I feel honoured to return here – I am
not an expert in this place but I have seen other places and
I’ve gathered some general principles on what has not worked
(and there is a lot of data on what has not worked) and what does seem
to work (and there is not much data on what does seem to work). The
reason for that is because everywhere we look we are seeing bad things
happening. There are some principles that I think we can use to
understand what the situation is here and how we might make things work
so I would like to share some of that.
As a biologist, I became a “leading
expert” in blue crabs because no one else was interested in
doing it. I felt that they were so productive, had so many young that
there was no way they would ever become a conservation issue
– but the inconceivable happened. As it did with the
“mountains of cod” that are no more; lives have
been disrupted and the cod may never come back. Similar things have
happened in place after place.
I am either blessed or cursed with the big
picture but have never had the experience of working hour after hour,
day after day hammering out a local plan. I know a local plan is very
important because ultimately this is about people. The question is how
do you fit together the big and the small, the earth or the ocean basin
or the region or the locality, how does it fit together? I can offer a
few thoughts:
- Marine life is largely unknown by people, we
spend most of our energy trying to figure out what is there that
affects us. The marine species that affect most of society are the ones
we eat or the ones that we are afraid of. Our thinking about the ocean
is really not what it should be. For example, in Florida this year one
young person died after a shark attack and other was bitten. This made
front-page news and lots of information was put out. Then a colleague
pointed out that statistically there are more people around the world
killed by falling coconuts than by sharks – but we never hear
about a “coconut crisis”! People don’t
understand how what they perceive as the “shark
crisis” fits into the real world.
- The data that we have is not about oceans, not
about marine life, not about fish, not even about commercially
important fish but only the catches of commercially important fish.
That is basically the best data we have and it is a very small subset
of the data we could have. This is a problem. A grad student looked at
long-line fishing in the Gulf of Mexico – 50 years worth of
data on tuna catch trends. When he sifted through the data it became
clear that something important had been missed – the change
in the population of a particular shark in the Gulf of Mexico. They had
declined by 90% since the tuna fishery started. Something huge was
going on and National Marine Fisheries (NMF) had missed it. NMF is
concerned only if it involves: (a) a species we can eat, (b)
populations so low they’re likely to vanish and (c) marine
mammals.
- We are not looking at most of what is
happening in the sea. When you don’t look you may be falsely
reassured that things are okay.
The marine biologists of the world got together
and in 1998 released a statement, “Troubled Waters”
that said the oceans are in trouble, everywhere we look we see trouble,
we see alarming trends and we are scared, we need to do something about
it and here are things we must do.
The US had two blue ribbon panels looking at the
issue of oceans policy. In 1969, they concluded that the problem was
too many Russians and Poles fishing in US waters and that the solution
was to build up the fishing industry so the US could get full
utilization of its own marine resources, finding the most efficient way
to maximize the effort. More recently, the Pew Oceans Commission
produced a really good paper. The official US Commission on Oceans
Policy included oil and gas development but otherwise the conclusions
that came out of it were very similar to the Pew report – the
oceans are in trouble, institutions are doing a poor job and we need to
change the way we do business.
So what can be done?
- There is a problem in the mismatch between
what we see around us and what we don’t see under the surface
of the water. We’re “sort of blind.” The
least blind among as are fishermen, the military, the oil and gas
industry and marine scientists. The military doesn’t
necessarily want to share their information. The fishing
industry’s information is also proprietary and they are
reluctant to share it. The datasets that would help us see and
understand are hard to come by.
- Things happen at different scales of place and
time in the oceans – for people and for marine organisms.
Glenn Van Blaricom talked last night about narwhals and some recent
progress towards finding out where they spend their time. This is a
familiar animal that has been used for a long time but how do you
‘manage’ that use if you don’t know where
the animals come from or go to. New tagging technology that has become
available is useful. It can be integrated with older tools such as GIS
that help us see what we couldn’t see before and lead us to
intelligent conclusions.
- There are some processes you can control and
some you can’t. 5,000 people on Haida Gwaii can’t
control global warming, though they have to deal with it and can help
in a very small way. Global warming is important because it determines
the pattern of wind, rain and currents that affect the productivity and
health of the ocean. Nor can you do much, except as a Canadian citizen,
about the outpouring of oil from Alberta’s tar sands. Learn
what you can control, and work on the things that affect your home
place. See how your piece fits into the bigger picture.
You’re the expert on this place. You know where things are
– and where they used to be.
The WWF’s area of concern is huge and
heterogeneous and people have different interests. It will be harder to
manage the larger area, so get together on local action for the local
area. Build trust locally to form a basis for managing ocean resources
to the point where they can be sustained to a considerable degree. What
happens to humpbacks in Hawaii, seabirds in the Arctic and other things
in other jurisdictions are important to what happens here, but they are
not the areas the local community can most readily affect.
All marine life is connected. Seabirds depend on
big animals in the deep that drive small organisms to the surface.
Learn about the connections and you can save a good deal.
^
top
Discussion Groups
How do we get traditional
& local knowledge into Haida Gwaii marine planning?
Host: Russ Jones
- Where is it?
- Haida, elders, Skidegate Haida Immersion
Program (SHIP) – living knowledge
- Fishers, other people that have knowledge of
the ocean
- Literature
- Mariners
- How do we get it?
- Survey/interview – design of the
survey has to be very well thought out (also see last
comment under Point 6)
- Past studies – compile and
collect information
- In-depth studies
- Look at existing examples (Australia, Great
Barrier Reef and ocean plans)
- How to organize the information?
- Database (geo-referenced)
- Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
- Information has to be first organized, a
decision made on reliability and then digitized into database and GIS.
- Modeling
- Challenges
- Mistrust – what are you going to
use this for?
- Confidentiality – locations
- Fewer experiences today than in the past
- Data quality/reliability
- Timeframe – deadlines
- Other values of traditional knowledge
– other values are collected, it is important to include
everything. Positive relationships with organisms
- The way ahead
- Build understanding
- School programs – get traditional
knowledge in the schools and the importance of this knowledge
- Use existing experience like the Great
Barrier Reef to help design local data collection
- (added from comment in closing
discussions) tap into existing local & traditional
knowledge gathering systems like those developed by Living Oceans
Society and Ecotrust Canada.
^
top
Ways to use marine conservation
areas & networks in marine planning
Hosts: Glenn Vanblaricom with John Cigliano
(visiting researchers)
Haida concern around tourism impacts on local
resources and communities (clam digging and crabbing on North Beach,
sportfishing around Langara Island)
- Langara lodge sees 100 clients every 5 days
- Lost commercial fishery because of sportfishery
expansion
- Coho Point is the first head of land in BC for
salmon swimming south, from there to the Skeena and Fraser Rivers
- Huge economic resistance (government, industry)
to protecting this area (MPAs)
Defining Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
- First steps is to get biological information
together to make an effective MPA
- MPAs don’t even show up on nautical
charts. In BC, there is not even a basic acknowledgement of what it is
and what the legislation means.
- But, Provincial marine areas are primarily
recreational. Little point in putting them on a map because there are
so few and little to no protection.
- In the Philippines, there is a good example of
communities united to save a reef (Elliot will know this example). They
managed it and were quite successful.
- Local people would support MPAs if there was
local control. Need local engagement and local control
- Need to network with those who have had success
in a community based MPA systems
- There are resources on Haida Gwaii that are
depleted, but a desire for local people to utilize those resources in
the future. ‘Look ahead seven generations’ People
are willing to sacrifice if there is hope.
- Need strong educational component (public
education) around MPAs and marine resources in general before local
communities buy-in and MPAs are locally effective. The youth
participants said they were exposed to salmon enhancement in elementary
school but no general marine science exposure in high school.
A Marine Protected Area (MPA) network
- If you protect fish in Gwaii Hanaas (South
Moresby Island) only, they are defeated if the same level of protection
is not found around Graham Island
- General approval of concept of having an MPA at
Langara Island to save the salmon
- Voiced lack of knowledge around benefits of
MPAs, socio-economic benefits
- If MPAs are established they require
legislative teeth. This may have to come through aboriginal title
(title case and agreements between CHN and governments)
- Haida are naturally defensive about MPAs
because it means more loss — “you can’t
do that … here.” Already fisheries have imposed
‘losses’ on the Haida community. Examples of loss
include abalone, roe on kelp, sockeye – All traditional
fisheries that are fished out. Education on poaching must start in the
schools.
- Benefits to MPAs are ability to access
traditional fisheries with protection
- Notion of sacrifice now for the benefit of
future generations sits well with the two youth participants
- How do you set up a network? Need best and
worst case scenarios from around the globe.
Enforcement
- There is no (effective) fisheries enforcement
in the waters of Haida Gwaii
- This is a bigger issue on the west coast (more
remote)
- MPAs won’t protect without
enforcement and education
^
top
Ways to apply ecosystem-based
fisheries management (EBFM)
Host: Elliott Norse (visiting researcher)
Summary
Definition of EBFM:
- EBFM is managing species and habitats in a
manner that allows future generations to benefit socially,
environmentally, economically and culturally the same as past
generations.
- EBFM is managing human activities to ensure
that the ecosystem maintains a composition, structure and function that
allow for social, environmental, economical and cultural benefits to
continue for all future generations.
- EBFM:
- Implies sustaining commercial and
non-commercial fisheries
- Needs to define what an ecosystem is,
indicators in the system and goods that can be measured and adjusted
- Needs to account for seasonality of fish
populations and other indicators
- Needs to account for longevity/resilience
of populations/systems
How to get to EBFM:
- 90% of the issue is getting local control
- However, we should still come up with a plan
that should we obtain control, we could carry out the plan
- There are some great success stories and a
wealth of local knowledge plus we have a sense of where we want to go
- To address the problem of local control, the
most effective approach may be to address specific issues (as has been
done so far) rather than taking a broad brush approach
- But we still need to figure out how to address
the issue of local control from a broader perspective
- A possible solution may be to create a decision
body that is a commission whose composition is controlled to ensure
that there is predominant local control/stake at the table.
- There is a significant asset in the Haida
people being recognized as serious players
- We need to take advantage of people in the
forestry sector who have knowledge of EBM and can apply the principals
and understanding to the marine environment and help marine managers
improve their application of EBFM.
- People of Haida Gwaii need to be ready to take
advantage of initiatives coming down the pipe to be able to proactively
and effectively participate to ensure their needs will be met. For
example, DFO’s Integrated Management Planning, Coastal
First Nations initiative for Integrated Management Planning, General
consultations with Coastal Communities, MPA development etc.
Discussion
What do you know about EBFM?
- Considers interaction between different uses -
integrated
- Considers how species interact with each other.
Single species management does not work because targeted species eat
other species and are eaten by other species therefore need larger
context such as EBFM
- Meaning of ecosystem:
- earth is an ecosystem
- ecosystem meaning is different depending on
different scales – different criteria tie different aspects
together
Questions to understand EBFM:
- What do you care about in terms of the
ecosystem?
- How do we want ecosystems to function or how do
we want to change the ecosystem to support a different function?
- What do we need to keep before we take in order
to ensure that the ecosystem continues to function?
- To what point do we want to maintain current
ecosystem function?
- What exactly do we want to maintain in the
ecosystem?
Some thoughts to understanding EBFM:
- Ecosystems contain changing species at changing
ages – we need this variation to maintain biodiversity
- We need young patches to older patches to very
old patches, and so on
- We need balance in terms of ecosystem
composition, structure and function
- Nature does not want monoculture
- Even if you can’t see it, there is a
function
What is the meaning of EBM?
- Sustain fisheries
- Define what the ecosystem is
- Consider seasonal factors
- Manage species and ecosystems in a
‘generational’ way
- Cultural, economical, social benefits
Ecosystem concept in fisheries - Principles of
EBFM:
- We do not want to loose any species –
want all the fisheries to continue
- Have to get the political structure on-side. If
all the different industries are not involved in the same management
approach, then isolated management by one/few industries may not work
to manage the ecosystem since they will be unable to address the
impacts to and from other industries using/impacting the resource.
- We need information – difficult to do
management if there is no information
- We need to base management on needs and not
wants
- Need to address the problem of
authority/jurisdiction discrepancies e.g. salmon habitat is lost due to
activities that managers do not have jurisdiction over
- Need to think differently, broader than private
interests
- Need to address the problem with fisheries
management terminology. For example, “surplus”
– there is no such thing, everything gets used in natural
systems. If something is taken out of the system, then someone in the
system loses out. Instead of aiming to take as much as we can
regardless of the other marine life that depend on that food source, we
really need to answer the question “How much can we take out
of the system without taking excessively from other
organisms?” There is unfounded belief that too many fish will
kill the stocks.
- Need to remove negative incentive for
conservation caused by government taking the unused portion of one
industries take and giving it to their competitor.
Is ‘zero impact’ reasonable
for EBFM?
- No, because we are part of the ecosystem
- Therefore, the question of how much impact is
acceptable becomes a social choice: How do we decide how
much impact is OK and how much is too much?
- As an intelligent society, we can mitigate some
impacts e.g. different fishing types have different impacts.
- Management would be easier if there were no
collateral damage – but there is, and sadly we do not account
for collateral damage when we fish.
- If we went back 50 years with less efficient
technology, we would be better off – but technology goes only
one way since there is no incentive to use less safe, less
efficient/effective methods if better options are available.
- Best fishing is when fish come to you
– But there is a problem with the global market in that
demand pushes up prices to a point where it is worthwhile to actively
pursue the fish rather than wait for it to come to you.
- We do not put the true costs on fishing:
- The public funds DFO for fisheries
management – an activity that fishermen do not always have to
directly pay for and is therefore a subsidy. This subsidy enables the
price of fish to be lower than it should be and thus interferes with
the natural markets for the fish.
- In a competitive market, if more money were
put into an industry than is being made in that industry, that industry
would go out of business. In the case of fisheries, the industry is
being kept afloat by not having to bear the full cost burden of that
resource use.
- However, it was noted that the price paid
for the fish at the supermarkets does not change. Instead, the majority
of the profit is made by the middle men.
- The industry has forced fishermen into
their unsustainable lifestyle e.g. quota systems, costs of entering a
fishery.
Ways to apply ecosystem-based fisheries management
(EBFM)
- Need to bring in broad-based group of people to
do planning to ensure balance
- Need to involve people throughout the process
(examples from Belize- stakeholder involvement)
- Bottom-up management should be the norm as
top-down does not work
- Funding is necessary. Some possible sources
include Gwaii Trust – communities need to agree that this is
what we want to pursue the funds
- What does it mean to have protected areas where
species can develop (ecologically) – don’t want to
lose their functions? Have protected areas where ecosystems can
function e.g. kelp beds
- A problem in fisheries – we need to
avoid the maximum utilization idea
- Should we have no impact? – No,
because we are part of the ecosystem
- How do we decide how much impact is okay?
How do we do EBM?
- We should figure this out so that if we do get
local control, we have a plan and a sense of where we want to go
- Need local control
- A decision body should be a commission where
everybody is represented
- Use the knowledge of people here who have
experience with land and forestry management
What do we want to get out of EBFM?
- Sustainable fishing
- Alongside other consumptive and
non-consumptive activities
- Need to mesh social choices
- Adaptability
- We do not know everything but we can ensure
that we do not make the wrong decision twice
- We need to deal adverse incentives that do
not lead to responsible decision-making e.g. subsidies
- The best value of the resource as possible
- Value-added production
- Developing markets for species currently
wasted as bait e.g. razor clams used as halibut bait
- Secondary production
- Need to test for shellfish toxins and
create market
- Reduce regulatory red tape (limitations
created by regulations, health testing etc., provincial jurisdiction
over health inspection and health Canada, corporation co-opted pursuit
of centralized decision-making by province and reluctance to provide a
local inspector) about the production and selling of local products to
local markets
- Possible solution to have CHN lobby
Health Canada for a local inspector given it’s capacity to
influence government and act outside the law
Issues with current management:
- What do we do when the natural inclination is
to shut down rather than keep the fishery going?
- The majority of people that fish here do not
live here
- The main problem is control – there
is little to no local control. Consequently the benefits are not coming
back to the communities
- Fishing licenses are expensive so only bought
by people in Vancouver – people have to fish a larger volume
to make their required payments
- Also large agencies buy up licenses but the
actual fishing is done by (sometimes local) financially burdened
individuals
Solutions to current management issues:
- Adjust the quota system so that local people
can get more control
- Need both top-down and bottom-up planning to
address EBFM
Other issues:
- There are costs of living in a small community
that limit people’s ability to actively pursue change. For
example:
- Loss of jobs
- To make things happen you have to
‘suffer’ for it
- The Islands has a hundred heads wearing a
thousand hats – conflict of interest issues, insecurity
issues, etc. makes it difficult to do things
What would happen if you could co-manage with DFO
to decide how much should be allocated to Haida Gwaii and how much can
be allocated to Vancouver? What are the rules of EBFM if we had more
local control?
- We need knowledge. However, even without a lot
of knowledge, we can practice the precautionary principle
- We do not manage fish but rather manage what
people do that impacts fish
- Therefore, we need people who understand
people better in addition to the customary biologists that manage
fisheries
- We are the largest predator – we
would be unsuccessful predators if we didn’t pay attention to
other predators
- Analogies of fisheries management:
- We don’t wait to run out of gas
to stop driving e.g. as has happened with the abalone fishery that was
virtually wiped out before it was stopped
- We also don’t generally drive a
car without a fuel gauge on – therefore we need to figure out
what those indicators are that give us a sense of how much fish is out
there
- Managing a fishery is like driving
– we want to go somewhere but we have other considerations
– e.g. other drivers on the road, environmental conditions,
quality of our vehicle etc.
- Diplomacy options:
- CHN government can negotiate with Federal
and Provincial governments for equal governance of resources
- Court option being pursued but is expensive
^
top
What are priority issues for Haida
Gwaii? How can we work towards defining solutions?
Host: Lynn Lee
Summary
Issues identified:
- Make it simple for the broad Islands community
to engage in the importance of marine ecosystems for human communities.
- Educate ourselves young and old
- Have you kissed a fish today? – Car
‘stickers’ or other daily reminders of the need for
healthy marine areas
- Enable local communities to directly benefit
from local resources
- Use resources in a way that is sustainable over
generations
- Create marine use practices that support,
maintain and restore long term natural cycles – Doing
more with less
What are some things that we can do?
- Engage - action/research
- Small group discussions to larger community,
e.g. surveys
- Inform – communicate what’s
going on around the Islands
- Community events – Oceans Day
– celebrate the Haida Gwaii way!
- Action!
Discussion
How do we live together on Haida Gwaii, tackle
priority issues and build a marine plan? What are the next steps? How
do we get communities/people involved? We as a community need to buy
into ‘the process’.
- Use ‘focus groups’
throughout the communities with a broad range of people to engage all
levels of interest and concern.
- Lessons learned from land use planning:
- Build a group that best represents everybody
and their interests, and with participants that communicate well (with
others at the table and with people/interests that they represent) and
trust one another.
- Have the bulk of the knowledge base up front
at the start of the process – in the land use process the
info came long after the start and participants were not able to engage
in as informed a discussion as possible during the process.
- For marine planning the data should be ready
and available before the process begins so we can make intelligent
decisions.
- How are you going to get the fisherman involved
in the process when they see that is doesn’t affect them. How
do we convince them that it is important to them and affect them in a
positive way? How can we support the process knowing what we need is
limited to us in the future? How can you create an objective that is
tangible that they can buy into?
- Maybe there needs to be an action/research
interest – create that interest level.
- There have been significant effects on
fishers. Twenty years ago there were 50 trollers living in and working
from Masset and Haida Gwaii had a vibrant fishing community that lived
here. The shellfish fisheries developed since the 80’s
involve far less (almost no) local fisherman. Now less than ten troll
licenses live on the entire Islands. Local fishermen want to use the
resources (fish) and bring benefits back into the community. That is
the way it used to be, people lived off the land and the resources were
kept here.
- Talk to the fisherman who have licenses,
people who use the resources for food, engage with them to convince. If
we do all these things maybe the government will listen and pay
attention. The fishermen are throwing in the towel because they believe
the government won’t pay attention.
- How does Gwaii Haanas (GH) fit into local
planning?
- Once the process is initiated, GH will be
on-going. At present GH is an internal government process that will
eventually unfold and involve the community.
- GH can be a tool that communities can use
to enact the changes that they believe are necessary in marine
management. There is a lot of fear around protected areas and taking
our resources away, but we need to reverse that. The protected areas
need to be done in the right way to benefit local people and not simply
take rights away.
How do you go through a process around how to
create protected areas and ecosystem-based management when the vast
majority of people who use these are areas are not local?
- For example, the GH process would involve many
interests local and off-Island, and involve different spatial scales of
consultation.
- When you talk to Islanders, they
don’t want those resources to be monopolized by fisherman
off-Island. For example, the geoduck fishery is almost a closed shop
– 55 license holders and they all live off-Island.
- There will be immediate issues we can take
action on and other issues that will need to be addressed over a longer
time like the geoduck fishery. Can we change current policy and
licensing situation? How can we bring/buy back licenses into local
communities?
- People may see taking action on policies as
inconceivable, but that does not mean people should not voice concern
and take action to initiate change.
How do we get people to take action? It is
difficult to get the momentum going because it is not something we have
to do – it is not a crisis yet.
- Need to address local needs and wants. Identify
what is important to the communities. Local people want resources to be
here for generations to come. This affects all of us.
- Need to get people to ‘go through
that door’ and realize that we need to protect our interests.
We can effect change.
- Need to spend time talking to people and
persuade them ‘through the door’ so they will open
up their vision. We have to do this at a very personal level.
- First thing is talking to people one on one,
what kind of tie do you have to the ocean – spiritual,
emotional, financial? Build on that.
- Suggestion to have some kind of survey for
Island circulation on how important the ocean is to you? Something as
simple as that and a combination of verbal survey etc.
- Address issues that are up front and important
to people. For example, 5 lodges have moved into Masset and there are
supposed to be 6 more. Government needs to realize they have to say no
to things like this, not just the average Joe. First Nations people do
not take more than what you have to take for your own use. The sports
fisherman don’t do that. Even crab fishing is getting worse,
more people.
- Will takes a lot of money and resources.
How do you enact all these things?
- You can set limits and protected areas for
local and First Nations value. Put community restrictions on use of the
area. We have Haida Fisheries here and we have to start using our
resources.
- People in the community have to step up and say
‘enough is enough,’ this is why and this is what we
are going to do about.
- Engage people at public meetings, kitchen
tables talks – build relationships with individual people
- Get a big body of people to demonstrate that
they are concerned and unified.
- Small community, everybody knows everybody
- Identify what the issues are and start with
those (crabbing in NB) etc. There are some greed issues that have taken
place – How do we stop that?
What are the issues that are important to us?
- North Beach recreational crab fishery
– We could do something about this. You have to do what you
say, there has to be a consequence and enforcement. Start with
education, values, and over time things will change but we
can’t expect it to happen overnight. In the meantime there
are things we can do – identify specific goals
- Fish farms – open-net cage fish
farms. Is already a Declaration against opening them around the Islands
initiated by Islanders and signed on by a wide cross-section of people
somewhere. Need to find that.
- Offshore oil and gas development is not welcome
- How to bring the resources around the Islands
back into the communities?
- Is there a way to put a cap, enough is enough,
on development like lodges?
- Need to find the resources (funding) to do the
work
- Value-added processing is one good way to
create local benefits
- Value the food that is caught here and use it
all
- Value added – taking less for more
- Identify what the value is for each individual
person
- Look at what scale, zoning, you can use a
marine plan to secure these needs
- We need to get control over what is happening
here on Haida Gwaii
- Learn from other people, communities and their
mistakes
- How do we get control over marine resources
around Haida Gwaii before there is nothing left?
- We need to take all the information and make
intelligent decisions
^
top
Closing Discussion
- When are we going to start doing? Sense of
frustration expressed that we need to start acting now on some of the
issues that we have been talking about. Need to get the larger Islands
community engaged in marine issues and act now.
- Commitment to keeping participants and the
larger Islands community updated about developments in marine planning
initiatives that affect Haida Gwaii.
- Commitment to keep compiling information to
inform the Islands community about marine ecosystems and marine use
around Haida Gwaii.
- Anticipation that small working group
discussions to develop Island solutions will follow this November.
- Haaw7a to all participants for their interest,
motivation and discussions through the day.
^
top
|
