| Volume 1. Issue 6. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Community Based Co-Management Offers A Better Way To Manage The Fishery
An Exciting And Innovative Way To Bring Real Hope To Coastal Communities.Members of Nova Scotia’s Coastal Communities Network (CCN) believe that there is a better way to manage Canada’s fishery resources; and they are speaking out to say that community based co-management is the answer. At a June 4th meeting held in Truro, CCN members made it clear that community based co-management of the fishery is what is needed to renew and revive the fishery and coastal communities in Nova Scotia. Starting with this issue and during the next few months Coastal Communities News will be focusing some of its attention on the topic of community based co-management of the fishery. Through a series of articles we will look at what co-management is; why it is supported by the CCN and many others, how it could work, how it would improve fishery management and the positive benefits for coastal communities. The CCN has undertaken extensive research and consultation on the issue of co-management and will be sharing the results of those efforts with all Nova Scotians through the pages of Coastal Communities News. Members of the CCN believe that community based co-management offers an exciting and innovative way to address issues such as reducing conflict between various competing gear sectors, ensuring equitable allocation of fishing opportunities, reducing conflict between DFO and N.S. Department of Fisheries managers and harvesters and helping to promote community economic development. At the same time, the current economic situation has made it necessary for the Government of Canada to reconsider the future of many of its programs. Many government jobs have been cut, including those in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As a result, the government seems interested in considering new systems that can be used to better manage the fisheries with less costs to the taxpayer. One of the possible management systems involves co-management. Sister Peggy Butts, co-chair of the CNN, and co-ordinator of the Social Justice Committee of the Diocese of Antigonish, says, "We are urging government and fishermen to take a long hard look at the benefits of co-management." Norma Richardson, a member of the CCN from the Eastern Shore, agrees with Butts and says,"Many of the problems facing coastal communities have been the direct result of weaknesses in the management of our fishery. There has been little or no community level input into the management process despite the fact that fishermen and other community members reported the downward trends well in advance." Richardson goes on to say, "We feel this is the perfect time to raise the issue of community based co-management and it’s potential to solve many of the problems facing Nova Scotia fishermen and coastal communities." While there has been a lot of discussion about implementing some form of community co-management into the fishery in the past the CCN believes the time for talk is over and it is now time for action on the issue. "It is time for fishermen, community members and government to get to work on developing co-management initiatives in Nova Scotia," says Sister Peggy Butts. What is Co-Management and Who Is Involved? There is no quick answer to this question and it causes confusion for some. Depending on who you talk to you will get different opinions about what constitutes true co-management. Some people see co-management of fishery resources involving all of the residents of a community, whether they are directly involved in harvesting fish or not. Others see only the people involved in harvesting and processing the resource being directly involved. Others see government continuing to play the lead role with community representatives serving in an advisory capacity. John Kearney, executive director of the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association and Policy Advisory to the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, says, "Part of the confusion surrounding co-management is the fact there are so many different definitions. The term is used in a number of ways to support different points of view." Kearney explains that corporate interests and community interests have opposing perspectives on the meaning of co-management. "The real issue, as far as I am concerned is whether management in the future is based on some type of private rights to the fishery resource or a system that recognizes collective rights to the resource. I believe the only way to go is with a system that supports collective rights. I fear though that we are heading towards a private rights system." To assist communities and fishermen sort out some of the confusion the CCN has already hosted a workshop and conference series on the topic. From those meetings the CCN has developed a series of principles and a framework for community based co-management. Don Zwicker, co-chair of the CCN, and member of the District of Lunenburg Municipal Council, explains that in true community based co-management both the government and community organizations have specific management responsibilities and authorities, but control of the overall process does not rest with one group. By working cooperatively, all of the tasks related to resource management are addressed. Zwicker says, "Community based co-management is a viable option. There are already some fledgling examples operating here in Nova Scotia. There is a community quota system existing in Sambro and the Mi'kmag Fish and Wildlife Commission are working on establishing a co-management system." Examples of Co-Management Systems There are examples of community based management systems at work now in Atlantic Canada. On Nova Scotia’s Eastern Shore, in the area around Sambro, approximately 65 boats have signed on to be part of a community management system. The group has been allocated a quota by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). It is the group's responsibility to develop a management plan for that quota and to administer and enforce it. The members of the group have elected a management committee of 6 fishermen. It is their job to manage the quota allocation to everyone's satisfaction. Sam Ellsworth helped to pioneer this project and he admits it wasn’t easy to accomplish. "It has been very challenging," he says. Ellsworth explains that it started purely as an experiment. "It was only on April 15 of this year that DFO accepted the group’s proposal. Now we will find out if it is going to be viable," says Ellsworth. "I am confident that it will work to the communities advantage though," Ellsworth reports. But what exactly constitutes a community? This is the one question that comes up time after time when groups sit down to discuss co-management. Sam Ellsworth explains that they defined 'community' based upon where fishermen have their residency. To be a part of the plan, fishermen must live in the area. Another criteria was that all members of the group should be of a like mind in terms of fishing. This has meant that all of the fishermen involved have boats under 45 feet in length. Another co-management example is in southern New Brunswick where John Kearney has helped to establish a similar community based co-management project. In this project about 75 boats have signed contracts to be part of the community management group. And as with the Nova Scotia group an elected group of fishermen has taken on responsibility for managing the quota allocated to them by DFO. "With this new plan in place all DFO does is monitor when the quota is caught," Kearney explains. Kearney sees community based co-management as the last best defence independent fishermen have to fight off the introduction of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) into the bulk of the fishery. "The scenario facing the independent fisherman is very drastic right now. The impetus is there from DFO for more privatization of the fishery. Most fishermen realize that ITQs have major implications." Kearney goes on to explain that those implications include concentration of ownership of the fish resource, far fewer communities with viable fisheries, less access to the fishery and the end of the road for most independent fishermen. Community based co-management is seen to offer many benefits to coastal communities but even its biggest supporters recognize that there is a long way to go before it is accepted as a standard practice. John Kearney explains, "The community based approach is still in its infancy. There is a lot of scepticism in the bureaucracy and there has been very little public policy support from economists and others." Sam Ellsworth agrees with Kearney and also believes that there are still some wrinkles to be worked out before community management is widely accepted. But he does believe that it is worth the effort. "It takes a while but once they try it, it will gain momentum. There will be far more support for it next year." Members of the CCN attending the recent June 4th meeting in Truro agreed to immediately proceed with further education and information dissemination on co-management. They also offered the research and background work completed to date to all fishermen, community groups and government agencies who want to explore and initiate co-management. That research includes the principles and framework of co-management. "These are the principles communities can utilize. We encourage coastal interests to adopt these," says Sister Peggy Butts. Sister Peggy Butts goes on to say, "Co-management offers a vehicle to deal with many of the issues we are facing in coastal communities. It is appropriate that we consider how we can all work together to ensure that the wealth we derive from the sea can best be managed for the benefit of all."
How Would Co-Management Improve The Fishery?Some of the reasons put forward by communities to support the establishment of a co-management system include:
During the coming months the CCN will continue its efforts to promote and support the exciting concept of community based co-management of the fishery. In the next issue of Coastal Communities News we will look more closely at some Nova Scotian examples of co-management that already exist. There will be more information on how to develop effective co-management systems for your community including the framework for co-management developed by people from all across Nova Scotia, attending the CCN workshops and conference on co-management. To obtain more information on Community Based Co-management contact the Coastal Communities Network at: Ph/Fax (902) 379-2688 The Principles Of Community Based Co-ManagementThe principles Of Community Based Co-Management developed by the CCN include: 1. Delegation of Authority - Co-management requires the government to pass legislation that will give co-management groups authority to develop and implement policy, and to undertake management activities. 2. Role of Fishers is Primary - In all co-management activities, fishers are recognized as the primary participants. Fish harvesters and their families will play a central role in making decisions about policy, planning, regulation& allocation, and enforcement & monitoring. 3. Community Involvement - In a co-management system, the communities’ involvement is essential. Members and representatives of communities will play an important role in decision-making where co-management activities affect the marine environment, and where the communities are likely to be seriously impacted by management policy, regulations & allocation. 4. Accountability - All participants in the management process must be accountable to their communities and to the people they represent. This is necessary to build trust between partners. 5. Appropriateness - Representation of the various stakeholders in decision-making must appropriately reflect the level of impact the issue has on them. Co-management participants who have little or no interest in a particular fishery will be involved in decision-making primarily on an advisory basis. 6. Build Consensus Where Possible - The decision-making process will be guided by the principle of consensus building whenever possible. Consensus building requires negotiation and recognition that compromises must be made. This can be a difficult task in some situations. Where consensus cannot be achieved, alternative democratic mechanisms should be employed. 7. Sustainability - The principles of sustainability should be a key factor in decision-making. All co-management activities should be undertaken in a manner that will support the establishment and maintenance of a sustainable fishery, both from an ecological perspective (resource sustainability) and from a socio-economic perspective (community sustainability). 8. Fair and Equitable Resource Sharing - Management activities should recognize the need for decisions that are fair and equitable. Management decisions should not unduly reward one individual, group, or community at the expense of another. Committed and dedicated participation in the fishery should be considered when determining access to the resource (allocation, and licensing, etc.). 9. Staff and Financial Resources - Co-management requires sufficient staff and financial resources to support the process. Financial support for fisheries management activities and for co-management teams, committees, etc. should be made available by the participants. Accordingly, the industry, the community, and the various levels of government should share the financial responsibility for fisheries co-management on a fair and equitable basis. 10. Information - Sufficient and reliable information is needed for successful fisheries co-management, therefore this information should be made available freely to the co-management group from all participants in the fishery without compromising the source of the information. The value of traditional knowledge and anecdotal information should be recognized by the co-management group. 11. Communication - Effective communications between all participants is essential for successful co-management. All participants must be willing to take part in frequent and open communication. In addition to written correspondence and meetings, telecommunication systems such as the internet could be helpful in increasing the ability of participants to communicate. 12. Education - Co-management requires a thorough education process directed at the public and all stakeholders (fishers, processors, shore-based workers, other community members, and government workers). Training and education should be undertaken to increase the skills and knowledge of present stakeholders as well as future generations.
North Of Smokey Region Unites To Plan For The Future
Working Together May Lead To Solutions For This Community's Economic Woes.Communities in the North of Smokey region on Cape Breton Island are putting aside their differences and rivalries and are coming together to work cooperatively on a strategic plan for community economic development. The region on Cape Breton’s northern most tip is made up of many small, isolated communities like Ingonish, Neil's Harbour, Dingwall, Bay St. Lawrence and Meat Cove. The population of the area is about 4000. The region has depended largely on the fishery and tourism to support the local economy. When the Atlantic fishery became troubled it impacted heavily on this region. In August 1994, a consultative body known as a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was established in the North of Smokey area. The primary function of this Committee was to assess proposals submitted under the Green initiative of The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy (TAGS)and to recommend to Human Resources Development (HRD) those proposals which provide the greatest opportunity for sustainable employment and economic adjustment. Members of the CAC represented all of the communities in the North of Smokey area and they realized that working together might be a successful way to help find solutions to some of the regions’ economic woes. They decided to expand their mandate beyond that of TAGS and explored the possibility of taking a broader role. It was decided to investigate community economic development as a means of encouraging planning and promoting growth. Following a meeting of local citizens, held in Neil’s Harbour in April of 1995, residents were in agreement that the region needed a community organization to promote development. Based upon the concern and support expressed by the community an interim Board of Directors was elected to over-see the establishment of an association to serve the area. The result was the creation and incorporation of the North of Smokey Economic Development Association (NOSEDA). Osborne Burke of Bay St. Lawrence, is the current chairman of NOSEDA. He explains that the CAC brought people from all areas of North of Smokey together. He says, "In the past it was one community versus another. For the first time we had representatives from the whole area sitting around a table together. We saw the benefits from that." Traditionally each small community in the region had established their own groups and associations. Burke says, "Once we had come together to come up with some ideas for the entire community we knew we wanted a group representing the entire area." To help get the group organized and a plan for local development put in place NOSEDA pursued funding from Human Resource Development Canada (HRDC) to hire a facilitator. With $20,000 of HRDC support they hired Ed Murphy of St. Francis Xavier University as a facilitator and Peggy Morrison, a local resident, and a TAGS participant, was hired as a co-ordinator. In November of 1995 the groups started the planning process. Their first step was to bring in experienced community economic development practitioners like Leonard Buckles from the Cheticamp Development Commission and Ruth Schneider from the St. Anne’s Development Association, to give an overview of community economic development and getting established. Over the next 18 weeks a series of seven public planning, sessions were held throughout the region. Those sessions encouraged local residents to examine the opportunities available in their region and to come up with an overall vision for the future of the area. With the help of Phil MacDonald from the Regional Development Agency, who provided background material, like statistics, the group was able to come up with a draft strategic plan. Osborne Burke explains, "Our purpose was to get a plan, not a perfect plan but a base to work from. We have identified objectives, target dates and responsibilities." The Community's Vision: This is how the community has described its vision. In the year 2001, Cape Smokey to Meat Cove has a more diversified economic base. These new economic activities, while expanding year-round job opportunities, are of the type to enhance rather than in any way diminish the beauty of our region.
Now that a plan is complete and there has been wide community feed back about it, the next step is to start achieving the objectives laid out. "We are hoping that the RDA will keep a community economic development officer in place to work with our community on this," says Burke. He goes on to explain that it will be up to local volunteers and businesses to help support and fund the effort. In a region that has depended almost entirely on the fishery and tourism for jobs, the effort to expand economic opportunities will not be easy. NOSEDA recognizes this and has come up with a comprehensive plan that addresses crucial areas like promoting community economic development, setting up local marketing groups, focusing on opportunities in tourism, ensuring good communication with local residents, diversifying the economy, protecting the environment and fostering culture and heritage. In the final strategic plan the committee identified ten goals:
LOCAL ECONOMY1. Develop popular support for Community Economic Development. 2. Encourage strong local support for existing businesses. 3. Maintain and develop facilities/services to attract and keep tourists. 4. Diversify economy through development of light industry with emphasis on leading-edge technology.
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT5. Raise community consciousness concerning the concept of stewardship and environmental citizenship. 6. Maintain and enhance mental and physical health services. 7. Reduce the gaps in our social safety net. 8. Maximize human resource potential through the generation of life-long learning opportunities.
CULTURE9. Foster the preservation of our culture and heritage. 10. Develop a new emphasis on Cooperation through the identification and promotion of the common good. Osborne Burke is pleased with the community’s effort to date. He also believes that there may be a positive side to all of the troubles brought on by the downturn in the local fishery. He says, "The downturn wasn’t all bad. People were taking it for granted. Now we have been forced to start thinking about other opportunities. It has opened some new doors." He goes on to say, "Most people in fishing communities are not the type to give up easily." For more information on the North of Smokey Economic Development Association phone: (902) 383-2514
The Next Wave For Aquaculture
Research Will Soon Lead To Cod, Halibut, Haddock and Flounder Being Farmed Commercially.By Trudy Fong Many of us still remember buying wild Atlantic Salmon in the grocery stores. The wild salmon don’t occupy those counters any more. The farmed ones do. The day is fast approaching when wild cod, halibut, haddock and winter flounder will also be a farmed fish commodity. Government and university scientists, as well as people in the industry, are now working in concert to develop the kinds of technologies for these alternate species that have already placed farmed trout and salmon on the serving platters of the nation. "Certainly we have a long way to go in marine fish," admits John Batt, Sambro Fisheries research director. He notes that, "Over 100 species are cultured around the world." Sambro Fisheries is working with government and academics to develop the technology of farming winter flounder. It is expected that the company’s winter flounder will reach the market in three to five years. According to statistics, provided by the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries, there was a total of $9.5 million of fin fish produced in Nova Scotia in 1995 and another $964 thousand of shellfish. That compares with just $2.3 million for the whole industry in 1988. It is expected that the Nova Scotia production of fin fish and shellfish combined will grow to about $42 million by the year 2000. The aquaculture industry created 160 full time and another 320 part time jobs for Nova Scotians in 1995. By the year 2000 it is anticipated that 330 full time jobs and 610 part time jobs will rely on aquaculture. While world aquaculture production is quite dramatic as compared to the Canadian situation, Canada has a cold ocean water environment and a number of bottlenecks in research to overcome before marine fish culture can be successfully commercialized. Lack of technical knowledge is perhaps the biggest problem. "These are species that we’ve been catching for hundreds of years but we never bothered to learn anything about how they reproduce and grow, because we didn’t need to know that information," says Marli MacNeil, executive director of the Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia. The most crucial part is learning about the early life cycles, where mortality is highest. "Once they get to a certain point all you have to do is feed them and they’ll grow," emphasizes MacNeil. In the last few years, a partnership to hasten the commercialization of alternative fin fish has been formed between the federal government and the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The steering committee includes people from the federal and provincial governments, the National Research Council, industry, and academics. Under this body are other groups, with representatives from all sectors, tackling the various problems associated with the culturing of alternate species. Much of the alternate species research is being conducted at Saint Andrews Biological Station, in New Brunswick, where director Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright is also the Manager of the Aquaculture Science Division of the Maritimes Region of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In 1993 the Biological Station scientists were the first in North America to raise halibut and haddock from eggs, through metamorphosis to the juvenile stage. "But it was a limited success, with less than 100, so it’s not something you’d start a commercial industry on." Watson-Wright is encouraged by the winter flounder studies with Sambro Fisheries. Already academics have succeeded in producing numbers in the thousands, she says. "But that needs to get into the hundreds of thousands and the millions of juveniles." Bringing Canada’s east coast closer to the day when halibut can be farmed has also meant an international partnership with industry including some experts from a Norwegian aquaculture operation. Norway has spent an estimated $20 million researching halibut culture, says Watson-Wright, far more than Canadians have. At this stage, our scientists are trying to adapt Norwegian technology to our conditions. "We will be relying on technology transfer to a great extent." With these kinds of cooperative agreements, developments in the research of new species will become common knowledge among fish farmers, and marine scientists, rather than becoming closely guarded trade secrets. This has been a hold-up in the past, notes Gary Turner, senior advisor of the Aquaculture Coordination Branch of DFO in Halifax. Some knowledge is lost when it is transferred from country to country and expert to expert, says Turner. In particular, when research has been developed by a company, some knowledge stays with the individual enterprise. "And so, even though there are biological government groups working there too, it ends up being the commercial enterprises that really get to make it work and make it pay." The partnership of industry, government and academia will address this. "One is helping the other, drawing on the other’s expertise in every case. There is no doubt that this networking does speed up the process. It helps you to go further because you’re sharing the costs as well." Although Turner avoids crystal ball gazing,the anticipates that, by five to ten years, halibut, flounder and possibly haddock, will be full-blown commercial species. "Maybe there won’t be a lot of farms at the beginning, but they’ll build up as time goes on." For more information on aquaculture contact the NS Dept. of Fisheries
at:
Whore's Eggs
A Look At Nova Scotia's Green Sea Urchin Fishery.By Cher Roadhouse In 1989, a new fishery started off of Nova Scotia’s shore. It made use of a marine creature that had become a concern to many, as they mowed down the lush kelp beds in vast feeding fronts, leaving the ocean floor denuded in their wake. The once nicknamed "Whore’s Eggs," the Green Sea Urchin, had become a competitive market by the 1994 and ‘95 seasons. At present the British Columbia crop of this species is the only one that is comparable to that of Nova Scotia’s, giving these provinces almost exclusive coverage of the market in Asian countries (Japan being the largest). To keep the urchin from being over exposed the fishery has been allowed to expand slowly by limiting the number of licenses. Last year there were approximately 57 licensed fishers, up about 6 from 1994. A few more were added this season. The season varies, but runs from October through to the end of April. It is dependent on the spawning period of the urchin, as they are fished for their roe. Fishers, however, do not fish the whole season. They are unable to dive during storms or for a few days following due to low visibility ( caused by suspended particles). A license is now $100 and they are issued by county, when the fishery is deemed satisfactory in that area. When a county is opened up it is publicly announced, allowing fishers to apply. Names are then drawn, at random, for available licenses. "Restricted licensing," a method by which fishers get to choose their fishing zone after they draw in a county and keep that location for future years, is slowly being introduced. This plan encourages fishers to carefully manage their own fishery from year to year. Regulations (including proper licensing and a two inch minimum size restriction) are enforced by fishery officers, who can administer penalties that were voted on by the fishers. Licensing is not the only cost to the fisher. Fishers must have a boat, scuba gear (and be an experienced diver), rakes, and collecting bags just to start out. Peter Arsenault, an experienced diving instructor and part-time urchin fisher, estimates the start up costs to be about $3000. (not including the boat) and the equipment upkeep to be around $1000. per season. The fishing procedure includes raking the urchins off the rocks and collecting them in bags. The fisher then sends them to the processing plant and from there they are sent to the consumer. A can of grade A roe, about the size of a sardine can, is sold for around $300. to the Japanese consumer. The urchin diver is paid about seventy-five cents per pound of 10% roe. Percentage of roe is determined by weighing ten whole urchins and then their roe. The weight of roe is then divided by the weight of the whole urchin and multiplied by one hundred. One problem that this fishery is experiencing is periodic mass mortalities. From 1980 to ‘84 the first studied mass mortality occurred from Cape Sable Island to near Canso. There was a complete die-off in the Halifax and Liverpool areas and partial die-offs in various other areas this year. With individuals such as Dr. Schiebling (professor at Dalhousie University) studying these events it was determined that the cause was disease. The die-offs occur during seasons of high water temperature that allow the offending organism to survive where it normally would be too cool. The disease devastates whole colonies, littering the bottom with their remains. Urchins living in the deeper, cooler waters are not affected, as the infecting organism is not able to survive in the lower temperature. These urchins seem to serve as the reserve, moving into the areas left vacant of other urchins after the die-offs, and transformed into a thriving kelp bed (due to lack of grazing). These die-offs are balanced by periods of population explosions. Population explosions are caused by increased water temperature during the larval stage of the urchins. The warmer habitat causes the larvae to mature faster and settle sooner in crevices,allowing predators (crabs, fish,and minimally lobster), less time to feed on the free floating larvae. These high settlement rates in the larval stage are seen years later as a huge adult urchin population. The adult urchins then travel in lines called fronts, leaving barren grounds behind them. A new factor is now encroaching on this system, that scientists still do not understand completely. An invasive, crusting organism is growing on kelp plants causing them to become brittle and thus break off. This is a concern as it is not only destructive to the kelp beds, but also to the urchins, as kelp is their preferred diet. There are a number of factors that are known to affect the Green Sea Urchin fishery in Nova Scotia. The slow expansion of the fishery will, hopefully, allow the urchin fishery to become a strong business for Nova Scotian fishers. For further information contact: Robert Miller
Coastal Communities Set The Record Straight;"Reports Of Our Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated."The media has dealt another unnecessary kick in the teeth to Nova Scotia’s coastal communities. That is the opinion of the Coastal Communities Network (CCN), an organization representing coastal communities throughout the province. Newspapers, television networks and radio programs all recently featured headlines saying some troubled fishing communities should be allowed to collapse and die. The source of those headlines was the author of an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency report, Donald Savoie. The media claimed that the report titled, Economic Adjustment In Selected Coastal Communities, made recommendations to the federal government to ignore hopeless towns and villages and direct their efforts to those worth saving. Those comments did not sit well with many Nova Scotians, especially those who had had an opportunity to read the entire 300 page report. They quickly came to the conclusion that it was not the study that was a threat to their coastal communities but rather the media. CCN members are quick to point out that the eight recommendations contained in the report say nothing about abandoning coastal communities. Rather they encourage and support local leadership and direction of community economic development efforts. "It is clear that whoever wrote those stories did not read the report," says Wayne Edgar, a member of the CCN. "If they had they would see that there is a very different opinion expressed in the report. The author’s comments reported by the media do not match what is in the document. It was the media that gave it that twist." As an example, Edgar points to the recommendation contained in the study that states ‘federal and provincial governments should develop a regional development framework, which includes Community Economic Development at the local grassroots level, as an integral part of the overall strategy. "This does not sound like a recommendation to abandon coastal communities," says Edgar. Other CCN members don’t have a lot of confidence in the report either and point to big flaws. Including claims, made by news stories, that the authors of the report had carried out detailed interviews with local officials and residents before reaching their conclusions. Lillian Benham a resident of Lockeport and a CCN member, says, "The report lists only two people that were interviewed in Lockeport. That hardly constitutes extensive or detailed research." Joe Walsh, a member of the Coastal Communities Network from Canso, is also disturbed by the lack of knowledge of the local area expressed by the news reports. He is also concerned about the damage the media may have done to his town. "I cannot believe that the media would be so irresponsible. They have given credibility to the theory that we here on the east coast are just wasting government money and everyone would be better off if the government would cut us adrift. I think most people around here saw all of the media reports as mean spirited and just wrote the whole thing off as media sensationalism," he says. Many are expressing the opinion that real damage has been done to their communities by the media reports. Lillian Benham has heard stories of people cancelling vacation plans to Lockeport because of the reports. "Reporters should come and see the improvements that residents of this area have achieved in the past few years before they create a doom and gloom picture. The situation here is much brighter than those news reports would lead anyone to believe," says Benham. Charlene Harris, a CCN member from Shelburne, agrees with Benham and says, "This is another example of the media looking for a negative interpretation to put on the news, and having no clue as to how damaging it is to coastal communities. There are never any stories about the positive things that are taking place in our small communities to create a better future. If small communities could get as much attention to all of the positive activities taking place as this one bad news story received, we would all be better off." The report was completed in April of 1995 but was not released publicly until June of 1996. Many claim this makes the report out of date and media reports failed to demonstrate what has been accomplished in many of these communities over the past year. Coastal Communities News talked to CCN members from Canso, and Lockeport ( 2 of the Nova Scotia communities mentioned in the report) and got a much different picture than that portrayed by the media. Lillian Benham, of Lockeport, sees many positive activities in her town and certainly sees no evidence that the community should be abandoned. Benham explains that for a small community there is a lot of new development in occurring. She points out that two new tourist cottage operations are full to capacity, there are three active bed and breakfasts, restaurants are bringing in business, yachts are visiting to use harbour facilities, the Clearwater fish plant is expanding to process crab, and new stores , like an antique store and a craft and gift shop, are opening their doors. Benham says, "In general the town is losing its depressed look." Joe Walsh, of Canso, is seeing similar positive activities in his community. "There are a lot of positive things happening here. The fishplant is processing underutilized species along with crab. Shrimp are also being landed here now. The tuna fishery is still active. We have just completed construction on a new centre town park and have started work on a new waterfront promenade. Our local regional development authority is working to develop a ferry service between Canso and Isle Madame. An internet service site has been established for the area. Tourism is doing well again this year. All in all we are very positive." The 302 page report was produced by the Canadian Institute For Research On Regional Development. Two -thirds of the $128,000. price tag for the report was paid by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. CCN member Charlene Harris wonders whether that money could have been better spent elsewhere. "There are a lot of small communities who are facing government cutbacks everyday yet they spend all of this money on a report that in the end has hurt communities." Coastal Communities News wants to hear what you think about the media’s reporting of this story. Write to Coastal Communities News at: P.O. Box 225,
The Real Story About Canada's Fishery
"Claims That Canada's Fishery Is A Drain On The National Economy Are False. It Is Vibrant, Dynamic And Vital," Says The Canadian Council Of Professional Fish Harvesters.Media stories would probably lead many people to believe that Nova Scotia’s coastal communities are ready for abandonment. Bad news stories recently focused on reports and studies that recommended governments not waste time or money trying to prop up fishing communities that have little chance of sustaining themselves. Most of the attention paid to coastal communities depict the fishing industry on the whole as so badly structured and so mismanaged that its net contribution to the Canadian economy is negative. In other words, Canada would be better off with no fishery at all. "Not so," says the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters who have just released a study of their own. It shows just how vibrant and alive the fishery is and how important it is to Canada. Despite the collapse of Atlantic groundfish stocks the Canadian fishery has maintained its historic contribution to the country’s economy. While the groundfish moratorium has hit employment levels hard, throughout the groundfish crisis the landed and processed value of the fishery has remained stable at its historic high of around $3 billion according to the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters. By focusing on the catastrophes the media gives the impression that the entire Canadian fishery is an economic and ecological horror story. But, despite the management failures, the real story is that the industry has grown significantly in some key fisheries. Between 1989 and 1994, the total value of fish landings grew from $947 million to over $1 billion in Atlantic Canada and from $440 million to $555 million in British Columbia. In fact the landed value of Canadian fish hit an all time high in 1994 while virtually the entire east coast groundfish industry was shut down! On the east coast increased landings and improved international prices for shellfish -- crab, lobster, shrimp and scallops -- made up for the loss of groundfish. However there are fewer fishing licenses and less processing required for shellfish, so only a small percentage of the jobs lost in the groundfish sector have been regained, especially in Newfoundland. On the Pacific coast, improved prices for sockeye salmon, herring, shellfish and groundfish accounted for the growth in landed value from 1990 to 1994. The net effect is that the total value of the Canadian fishery, including both landed and processed value, has been stable at around $3 billion throughout the period of crisis. Despite the stability in landed value the fishery has changed enormously over the last few years. A decade ago the fishery depended on a narrow range of species and competed for market share against cheap meats like poultry and pork. Today seafood is a high-value product. One important reason for the fishery’s surprising resiliency is globalization - the development of a world market. Canadian harvesters and processors have responded aggressively to new market opportunities in Europe, Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, and have diversified their catches and products and improved their marketing skills. New fisheries have opened to serve world markets. Species once considered of no value are now in demand - sea urchins, sharks, monkfish, silver hake, skate, lumpfish, offshore clams, dogfish, rockweed, silversides, whelks, eels, and a half dozen crab species, to cite just a few. According to the Council, the umbrella group which represents Canada’s organized fish harvesters, the Canadian fishery has re-positioned itself in the new global economy thanks largely to the marketing of shellfish products. The fishery is also marketing new species and providing a range of top quality products at competitive prices around the world thereby shifting away from its previous high volume, low value marketing strategy according to a Council policy paper released recently. In 1990, before the major collapse, the Atlantic fishery alone generated 55,000 person years of direct employment, half in harvesting and half in processing. Another 60,000 indirect and induced person years of employment can be projected outside the fishery. Roughly half of these spread-effect jobs would be in the Atlantic provinces, 24% in Ontario and 20% in Quebec. Overall the Canadian fisheries generate $1.5 billion in gross output in the wider economy including buildings and vessel construction, fuel and vehicles, fishing gear, electronic equipment, insurance and financial services, and so one. So Central Canada too has a considerable employment stake in a well managed fishery that spreads the wealth broadly. Prosperous Canadian fish harvesters buy Canadian products; the Ford, GM and Dodge pick-ups that crowd our wharves are ample proof of this. But the fishing industry does more than stimulate the Canadian economy through demand for goods and services. Fish harvesters also provide the raw materials for a processing industry that in 1993 employed some 21,000 workers in over 400 plants and paid $433 million in wages in Canada. Four fifths of these processing jobs were in Atlantic Canada. Seafood processing accounted for approximately 15% of total value added for all food processed in Canada in that year! The fishery, however, is most important in human terms. On the Atlantic coast more than 1,300 communities depend heavily on the fisheries for their existence. Some 519,000 people - 25% of the total population - live in small fishing communities. In Newfoundland 54% of the population lives in such communities. Concern For The Future The Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, is warning, however, that benefits of the fishing industry are in danger of being handed over to large corporations under the government’s current fisheries policy; particularly on the Pacific coast. The Council said the government’s bureaucratically inspired fisheries policies favour powerful corporate interests and, if unchecked, will lead to concentration of ownership in the fishery. "The partnership provisions of the new Fisheries Act, in particular, will allow the wealth generated by the fishery to be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands," said Daniel Bernier the Council’s Executive Director. He went on to say, "There is a real danger of undue concentration in the hands of large companies and large vessel owners at the expense of the small independent operators." "If there is to be a future for Canada’s coastal communities the government must immediately re-direct its fisheries policy towards the interest of the independent professional fish harvesters to make room for the ideas of the men and women who earn their living on the water," Bernier added. The Council has issued four principles they believe are important to sustaining and protecting Canada’s fishery. First Principle: Fisheries policy must be developed through real fish harvester participation. First the top down bureaucratically inspired fisheries policies that continue to favour powerful corporate interests must end. The decision making process around fisheries policy must be opened up and democratized to make room for the opinions of fish harvesters. Second Principle: The fishing must be left to independent professional fish harvesters. Ownership of fishing licenses and vessels must be kept separate from ownership of processing plants to ensure that the wealth from the sea is shared as broadly as possible. Access to licenses, quotas and fisheries support programs must be reserved for independent owner- operators who meet professional standards developed and agreed upon by fellow fish harvesters. The current loopholes which encourage companies to buy up licenses through under-the-table deals and the policies which allow fishing licenses to be owned and traded by non-fishers must be eliminated. Also, harvesters historically attached and adjacent to fisheries that are now shut down must have priority access to available fishing opportunities when the stocks recover. Third Principle: Fisheries management must be based on conservation and ecological approaches. The narrow and costly specialization policies promoted by government must be re-examined. Diversified or multi-license enterprises must be encouraged to provide fish harvesters a broader base upon which to make a living and to reduce over dependence on vulnerable stocks. Gear conflicts must be dealt with through scientific research with full harvester participation to determine the most sound harvesting practices from a conservation perspective. Fish harvester-scientist- cooperation must be expanded. Fish harvesters must become full partners in stock assessment processes and their ecological knowledge used in the foundation of scientific advice and research priorities. Fourth Principle: Fisheries rationalization must be fair. Everyone agrees that fishing capacity must be reduced or rationalized to use the government’s word. But excess fishing capacity must be reduced in a fair way. It is misguided government policy which encouraged overcapacity to begin with. Governments, therefore, must bear a fair share of the costs of capacity reduction. Income supports and adjustment programs must be provided for harvesters who will be displaced from the fishery by declining stocks and by industry restructuring. This story contains excerpts from the document "Creating New Wealth from The Sea", published by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters. For copies of this policy paper, contact: Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters
Marine Resource Centre A Priority For Halifax RDA
Community Members Set Priorities For Diversifying The Local Economy.By Trudy Fong The recently formed Halifax Regional Development Agency, or RDA, is establishing a Marine Resource Centre in Musquodoboit Harbour, designed to meet the needs of fishing communities in eastern Halifax County, from Ecum Secum to Eastern Passage, including Dartmouth and Sackville. Halifax RDA general manager, Greg Brown, points out that his group has been operational since May of 1995, and they have already completed 50 projects in the county. The RDA is the result of a partnership of three levels of government, and is one third funded by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, one third by the province and one third by the Halifax Regional Municipality. An integral part of the newly-formed RDA’s ever-evolving strategic plan of action will be an analysis of problems and opportunities in the region’s economy. Brown says his group is quite involved in projects related to TAGS and other activities within the marine industries, as a result of the previous involvement of community groups which were integrated into the RDA during the agency’s founding. One of the activities the Halifax RDA undertook during the winter of 1996 was an Opportunities Expo. That event brought together local residents in a day long session to explore opportunities for new businesses and job creation in Halifax County. JoAnne Fewer, development officer with the RDA, reports that from that Expo eight opportunities were identified as priorities. "It was the participants themselves who came up with the ideas and prioritized them," says Fewer. The priorities for action include: manufacturing using local products (ie: forestry), processing and value adding to aquaculture and imported fish, information services related to communication and education in natural resource products, environmental education and action (ie: composting), marine recreation industries such as sport fishing, lighthouses, sea kayaking, charter tours/seal watching, guide services and package tours, land based adventure / ecotourism, aquaculture, and tourist attractions (ie: boat building). Diversifying the fishing industry and taking advantage of opportunities in tourism and recreation, especially where they are related to the fishery and the ocean, are central themes in the priorities established. Greg Brown explains there is a good reason for that. "The fishing industry is certainly an important sector in the Halifax region. In response to that, one of the first priorities was the establishment of the Marine Resource Centre." The Musquodoboit Harbour-based centre, will be the focal point for information and resource assistance for those seeking to take advantage of opportunities related to the marine industries. The Centre will also house a training coordinator and a TAGS coordinator. Norma Richardson, is fisheries resource coordinator at the Marine Resource Centre. "There is still a little bit of life in the fishery," notes Richardson, who serves 326 of Halifax county’s TAGS clients. She points to the growth of interest in aquaculture, or fish farming, in these communities. As well, Richardson explains that many of the local fish plants have remained open by upgrading their processing methods and handling foreign-harvested fish. Interest in breathing new life into the industry is high, she says. Richardson also notes that, "A lot of the fish plants are kept going now with fish from Iceland or foreign vessels." While fishermen still harvest cusk, hake and halibut, they are considering the prospects of roe, sea urchin, which is popular in Japan, and other species. Advice is culled from the grassroots level, she says, with information sessions held by people in the industry themselves. Harold Baker is part owner of Baker’s Point Fishery. He says, "We have more people working now than we did in 1993." Apart from upgrading equipment to the level of bigger processing plants, the fishery has become involved in processing previously frozen fish from Norway and Russia. Baker explains that Russia in particular wants to sell fish to Canada in order to obtain hard currency. "Most of the products that we are producing now, four or five years ago we weren’t doing." Baker says they’ve added creative packaging, like shatter packs which allow small portions to be separated out. These value-added products generate a higher return. An example of the types of activities the Marine Resource Centre will coordinate includes a recent information session held to meet the growing interest in aquaculture. The session was facilitated by Brian Muise and Associates. Biologist John Batt is Sambro Fishery’s research director and was one of those who attended the session. He is currently working on the viability of farming winter flounder. "Certainly we have a long way to go in marine fish," admits Batt. While fish farming has provided a real economic boost in regions of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, their waters are warmer and the groundwork has already been laid for their type of species. With marine flat fish, like the flounder, research will start to generate employment five or ten years down the road, cautions Batt. He explains that skilled labour and a long-term commitment is needed. Other types of aquaculture are up and running in this area. "European Oysters are a bright spot," notes Batt. Begun experimentally in the early 1970’s, demand has grown for the spat or small sea oysters used for start-up. Locally, there are now three small commercial hatcheries. Aquaculture is a community-based business, he notes. Many fishermen are getting interested in aquaculture as a means of staying in their communities and using their experience of working on the water. "There’s always a pioneer," says Batt. While one fisherman may invest in a fish cage and get started in fish farming, fishermen in the neighbourhood will be watching closely for the results. The Marine Resource Centre has other options for TAGS clients. Active adjustment involves training for other trades. TAGS training coordinator, Leanne Rutledge, works to arrange for training and upgrading with the Dartmouth office of Human Resources Development, or HRD. Rutledge says, "The RDA is definitely helping in that they are sponsoring these programs." Rutledge underlines the contribution of the Halifax RDA. The Opportunities Expo, for example, was initiated by the RDA. "We all worked together on that." To contact the Halifax RDA
Nova Scotia Women's FishNet Plans For The FutureBy Nova Scotia Women's FishNet On a rainy, blustery Saturday in mid February a group of Fishnet members gathered together in Halifax to talk about the future of Fishnet. Women who had planned to come but were stopped by the elements called in their regrets and sent along some ideas. With coffees, muffins and flip-charts we started to think about the upcoming year and what we wanted and needed to do as Fishnet. As our funding draws to an end, it is time to draw up some new plans to focus our energies over the year and which will form the core of our new funding proposals. Some members from the Halifax area have already volunteered to fill in applications and write up the grant requests once we have put together what we feel are the most important elements of our work. In the limited time available the women at the Halifax meeting began to identify some of the things we thought should be part of this year’s Fishnet workplan. We want to know what you think. In sharing our thoughts with you we would like to get your comments and reactions as well as ideas for other initiatives in your community which should be part of the Fishnet program. What We Are All About We began with an enthusiastic endorsement that Fishnet must continue to be an organization that is working towards making sure women’s voices are heard in the process of building sustainable coastal communities and in protecting and preserving our marine resources for future generations. How we actually do this is through the many projects, actions and initiatives local Fishnet groups undertake. We Want A Say! Over the last year local Fishnet groups have expressed a desire to be better informed about what is happening in the fishery - not just knowing the current policy issues but also having a chance to inform what those policies are. We want to be more knowledgeable about what policy changes are being sought by fishers and their organisations and what policy changes are coming down from the government. Being able to influence government policy and direction for change requested by fishermen’s organisations, both at the industry policy level and at the big picture/long term level of developing sustainable communities including issues such as family violence is important. How We Do This To prepare ourselves for this task we felt that Fishnet would have to devote energy and resources to a number of areas such as doing more community based research by talking to people in our communities who are involved in the issues, improving our communication so we have the capacity to inform and be informed; and strengthening Fishnet both at the provincial and local levels so we can actually do it. Strengthening Fishnet Given all the successes over the past year we have much to work with and to build on. We felt that priority should be given to both supporting existing Fishnet groups with workshops and skills development but also following up with all of those women who have expressed interest in starting new Fishnet groups. This means either providing or helping groups access sustaining funds to pay for things like child-care, transportation, office expenses, communications etc. Support Ourselves When we looked at where and how we have accomplished the most over the past year, it became clear to us that building our community happens easier and quicker if we have people who can devote time and energy to working with the local groups. We feel that having an overall coordinator and a number of community development workers in different areas of the province would be one way of doing this. Who We Communicate With Being able to communicate not only among ourselves but with others is something we felt we should try to do more strategically and efficiently. Fishnet groups need to be able to reach out and contact each other. In addition it is important for us to stay in touch with other coastal communities and fishermen’s groups such as the Coastal Communities Network. Maritime Fishermen’s Union, the new Alliance, CCPFH etc. We also recognized that at times we need to talk to the general public about what we think. The media have been contacting us to find out what we think. We need some way to use this to advance our goal. Also we realize how much we have benefited and been strengthened by our conversations with women from the other Atlantic Provinces and around the world who feel like we do. We would like to make sure we increase our ability to continue these contacts and conversations into the future. How To Influence Policy We also spent considerable time talking about how to approach the whole issue of policy. Once we have our informed and strong local and provincial chapters with an efficient organization and communications system to stay informed, how do we actually go about influencing policy? We feel that we need to develop some strategies for getting women to meet and talk about what policy should be developed - perhaps through a Policy Sub-Committee. In addition we need to have seats at a number of tables for women who represent women’s voices from different areas around Nova Scotia. Ideally many different women will attend these meetings and will inform different groups around the province, possibly using a central communications link. What Next? Whew! We talked and talked and ran out of time. Afterwards we realised we missed so much including what many of you are doing and planning in your communities this year. Now that you know what we are thinking - What do you think? Do any of our ideas make sense? What are you doing that you would like to see included? We will include your suggestions in the overall program and use this to begin to put together funding proposals to support the work. Let us swim through the eddy one more time gathering more thoughts and strategies. Together we will be stronger and move ahead. Send your feedback and additions as quickly as possible to the FishNet office at: FishNet
Coastal Communities NewsAcknowledgements Coastal Communities News is published bi-monthly by the Coastal Communities Network, a non-profit society registered in the province of Nova Scotia. Coastal Communities News is made possible by the generous efforts of many volunteers, and by financial contributions from Human Resources Development Canada, and by donations and in-kind contributions from the Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture, as well as from member groups and organizations. We welcome all articles and submissions, from individuals and groups, with content in keeping with the role and nature of this magazine. We reserve the right to edit all submissions. Except where additional credit has been given, all articles are prepared by the Editor and Editorial Board. Join the Coastal Communities Network
Our Mission StatementThe Coastal Communities Network is a volunteer association of organizations whose mission is to provide a forum to encourage dialogue, share information, and create strategies and actions that promote the survival and development of Nova Scotia's coastal and rural communities.
"A Large Voice for Small Communities"CCN is made up of organizations rooted in Nova Scotia's coastal and
rural communities, and it is the diversity of its membership that
gives it strength. Your organization, and your community, can help
CCN determine its direction and strengthen its voice still further.
Join the Coastal Communities Network today. How to Become Involved
|
 CCN Publications | Co-Management | Make It Happen | Up-Dates Glossary | CCN Magazine | Main Port | Fish Facts | Information Kit | SUBSCRIBE!!! | E-Mail |
|
All rights reserved by The Coastal Communities Network © 1997-2002. PO Box 1613 Pictou, N.S. B0K 1H0 Phone:(902)485-4754 Fax:(902)445-7134 E-Mail coastalnet@ns.sympatico.ca |