The national organization of Canada's commercial fish harvesters have released a discussion paper on the controversial "Partnerships" provisions of the new Fisheries Act.
The new Fisheries Act - Bill C-62 - contains provisions which will authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to grant persons legally binding access to fish resources in exchange for assuming greater fisheries management responsibilities and costs.
The discussion paper, prepared by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, is to be used as a resource by fish harvester organizations in preparation for public hearings on the Bill which will be held in coastal communities in February and March.
In 1996 the government was forced to let the same Bill die on the order table because of opposition to the partnership provisions.
Council Executive Director, Daniel Bernier, said the partnership provisions have generated a great deal of debate amongst fish harvesters because of the range of implications they could have on fisheries policy.
"The objectives of the part-answers when the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans begins its public hearings next month" Bernier added.
During the past two decades the devolution of management authority to a more local level has followed two patterns.
Since the early 1980's, the quasi-privatization of resource rights has been the dominant
pattern and has had much support within the bureaucracy, academic community, and the corporate sector of the commercial fishery. There is an increasing number of examples of this model from around the world, and due to its support among classical economists, it is a well developed and articulate model. ITQ and EA programs have been relatively successful in achieving fleet rationalization in the offshore and mid shore sectors. In a number of cases, fleet reduction has also resulted in a concentration of quota holdings in the hands of a small number of enterprises.
The reduced number of participants, the increased profitability and the security of access stemming from privatization make it a very attractive from an administrative and economic standpoint. However, it is precisely this fear of concentration of ownership that has led most independent, small boat operators to oppose the introduction of ITQs in their inshore sector.
Community based co-management as an alternative to privatization is far less well defined within the fishing industry. It has, nevertheless, gained increasing support in the inshore sector due to major policy initiatives on both the West and East coasts that promote the privatization model. Community based models of management have also been a central theme in the attempts of aboriginal peoples to secure rights of access to the fisheries.
Community based co-management is founded on the notion that 1) the fish harvesters within a particular geographic area share collective rights of access to the resource, 2) fisheries management should be designed to optimize the benefits accruing to that particular region, 3) there should be some equitable distribution of the benefits of resource access among license holders, and 4) all fisheries participants share in the decision making process.
One of the most recent attempts to establish community based co-management is the 4X groundfishery on the Atlantic coast. In October of 1996, representatives of 4X groundfish fixed gear fishers unanimously agreed to establish seven geographically based fisher management boards. These boards have their own groundfish allocations and will develop and implement management plans and licensing rules that suit local fishing patterns and needs in their respective areas.
Recently, fisheries policy has been dominated by another overriding concern; the need to decentralize fisheries management. The increasing complexity of fisheries management, the failure of the state to micro-manage fisheries, the collapse of groundfish stocks, fleet overcapacity and budgetary restraints have led policy makers to find ways to decentralize decision-making. Many fish harvesters, who have sought greater control over resources for sometime, also view decentralization as a means to gain greater management authority.
This month Coastal Communities News travels to Nova Scotia's South Shore to explore an island town that typifies the state of so many of Nova Scotia's coastal communities. Lockeport is a town of about 800 persons located between Liverpool and Shelburne and has seen its fortunes rise and fall with the state of the local fishery.
Lockeport has been particularly hard hit during the past ten years as the Atlantic groundfish stocks collapsed. For almost all of its life Lockeport depended on the jobs provided by the fishery, both on the water and in the fish plants, to sustain its economy.
Despite the downturn there are still signs of hope and optimism in Lockeport, as our recent visit demonstrated.
Coastal Communities News took time to talk with local residents, business people and politicians, including the mayor to get a feeling of what opportunities and threats confront this small community.
Lockeport is a pre-Loyalist community located on the southeastern shore of Shelburne County. It was first settled around 1760 by families from the northeastern United States. The first families to arrive were the Churchills and the Lockes. It was Jonathan Locke who gave the area its name. During the 1800's the area flourished with its fishery and West Indies trade. Many of the grand homes built during these good times are still standing today and help to attract many tourists to the area. Lockeport continued to thrive as a bustling community well into the twentieth century. At one point its population topped 1200 persons.
As late as 1972 the community was still bustling and boasted three major fish plants; Pierce's, National Sea and Swim's. There were grocery stores, gas stations, clothing stores and other ancillary businesses.
Lillian Benham, a member of Lockeport Town Council, recalls with pride how self reliant and independent the community was at that time. She explains that it was around 1975 that things really started to decline in Lockeport. A major fish plant closed and two devastating fires gutted the town's core and burned the National Sea Products plant. About 500 people were employed in the plants at that time.
Peter Swim, present day owner of the Town Market, a local grocery store, says, " A lot of the small businesses didn't get rebuilt after the fires and the jobs never really rebounded at the fish plants."
The population declined steadily over the next fifteen years and then the Atlantic groundfish crisis hit. In 1989, the last major source of steady jobs, at the National Sea Products plant, disappeared.
Peter Swim says there was total shock when the National Sea plant closed.
Unemployment has soared, optimism has collapsed and new opportunities have been few and far between.
Kent Balish, Vice principal at the local high school says that the whole community has had to ask itself, 'How do we start over?'
With the collapse of the groundfish fishery came government intervention in the way of community development programs and small business incentives. To some degree those programs helped, during those first few crucial years after the collapse. Community members began looking at other opportunities outside of the fishery and started a number of small businesses.
The feisty spirit of many in the community also helped to ensure that the community would not die without a fight.
And indeed during the past seven years, since 1990, things have stabilized a bit for the community.
Peter Swim says, "Things are a little bit better now than they were five years ago. The population has stabilized and small businesses are hanging in there."
There was a noticeable change in attitudes around 1990-1991 in the community says Peter Swim. "We started working together on rebuilding the town. From little things like new street signs to bigger things like a new bowling alley and restaurant."
Talk to anyone who lives in Lockeport and they will tell you that there are some very strong points to the community. "This is a safe, beautiful and caring community," says Kent Balish.
Indeed the beauty of Crescent Beach which lies within the boundaries of the town is one of the areas major assets. The beach has been a source of new jobs and business opportunities as well.
Since 1990 two new tourist accommodations businesses have opened at Crescent Beach. There are also three operating bed and breakfasts in the town.
Lockeport Mayor Bill Suttle explains that tourism has seen a boost in the area during the past few years. He says, "We need to see more promotion of our tourism industry."
Peter Swim agrees and says, "The tourism end has helped in the summers, but it is still a seasonal business. We need to find a way to extend the shoulder season a bit."
While tourism is a bright spot there have been other small steps forward for the community as well. The National Sea Products plant was sold to Clearwater Foods and about 100 jobs have been created. There are rumours that the plant is getting ready to expand and may create another 100 new jobs.
The town's waterfront recently got a face lift when the old Swim Brothers fish plant, which had fallen into disrepair was torn down. A new plant will be built in its place.
A new nursing home was built and recently opened in the town.
A project will soon be undertaken to restore and protect the natural sand dunes of Crescent Beach. The project will create some short term jobs and help to protect the beach and roadway which adjoins it.
Lockeport is also able to provide new businesses with access to an impressive industrial fresh water supply system. It was originally built to provide fresh water to the National Sea Products plant but also services other areas like the school and local laundromat. In addition the town has a complete sewer system and treatment facility.
A Beach Centre was built in the mid 1990's and houses a tourist bureau, observation deck and services for the many who visit Crescent Beach each summer.
Lockeport High School continues to have a national reputation for its unique programs to encourage kids to stay in school. Kent Balish says, "We have created a student centered school as opposed to a teacher centered school."
In order to accomplish this, Harbour Authorities have had to be established in each port. A new spirit of cooperation has encouraged local fishermen in the Lockeport area, to work together to form such a Harbour Authority.
Lillian Benham says, "It is such a pleasure and a joy to see fishermen working together on this new Authority."
The Harbour Authority has been able to develop a management plan that is acceptable to everyone. According to Benham they have been able to do this because they have set aside personal self interests and have looked at what will be good for the whole fishing community.
Bill Suttle sees the lack of jobs in the area as the biggest concern. "There have got to be more employment opportunities." He believes that it is time for all of the municipal units in Shelburne County to work together to bring new businesses and opportunities to the region.
Suttle says, "If the mayor had his wish all of the municipal units and development organizations in the area would join forces."
For his part Suttle believes that his town's fortunes are still tied to the fishery. "If the fishery bounces back we will see our community bounce back. But right now the local fishermen aren't fishing enough to make a go of it."
Suttle is also fearful of what will happen to some when the TAGS program ends next year. Without this income support welfare roles will increase.
Mayor Suttle also believes that there are still opportunities for spin off jobs from the fishery. A proposal to establish a value added fishery research centre in Lockeport was talked about several years ago. It would see a small lab and kitchen facility set up to create new value added fishery products. "What better place to do this type of research than right here," asks Suttle.
Although there was a lot of excitement when the idea was first conceived and studied, those studies are now sitting on a shelf and no further action has been taken by government or the community.
"This is also a great place for a canning factory to process herring," says Suttle. It would create a new market and put people back to work.
Despite these positive happenings there is still a feeling of unease in the community. Young people still don't see a lot of opportunities in the area.
Lillian Benham says, "Many young people are of the attitude that there is nothing to do here and you might as well leave. We have to change that attitude."
The stresses and strains of the past few years have also created divisions within the community.
"There is a real sense of frustration because more people aren't working together," says Kent Balish.
Peter Swim agrees and says,"The only thing missing is working together."
But even in this area there are small signs of encouragement. Government has recently asked communities throughout Atlantic Canada to take over responsibility for ports and wharves.
Lillian Benham says, "As the world has become smaller so to have the opportunities for small communities. Technology should allow us to be in touch with the world. We just have to identify opportunities that we can utilize here."
For Kent Balish Lockeport offers an environment and way of life that is unique.
Peter Swim states, "There is hope. There have been a lot of improvements in the past few years. We have grown, slowly. But better slowly than not at all."
In 1991, a new style of lending was introduced to Lockeport. "PARD" (a local term meaning friend or pal) was created as a partnership between Calmeadow, a Toronto based non profit organization, and Royal Bank. PARD offered micro-loans to self employed individuals, who lacked access to conventional sources of finance, whether because they lacked collateral, the amount they wanted was too small for banks to consider or they lacked a credit record. PARD was able to service these people through a process called peer group lending.
Peer group lending requires the formation of business credit groups consisting of 4-7 self employed individuals. In this style of lending the responsibility normally held by the bank is taken on by the members of the group - that is assessment of the persons character, the business, the loan application and the follow up process. The group also serves as a support system in which members share their successes and problems: much needed in combating the isolation that these business owners feel.
By July, 1994 PARD had extended 136 loans totalling $154,000 to 60 members in 14 borrowing groups. The success of PARD created an interest in peer lending throughout Nova Scotia. This interest led to the creation of Calmeadow Nova Scotia, a province wide peer lending initiative. The same way extension education became known as the "Antigonish Movement" after the place in which it began perhaps peer lending will one day be known as the "Lockeport Movement."
In the November 1996 issue of Coastal Communities News, the report on the state of Nova Scotia's coastal communities, talked about the downsizing of government services, including schools. One school board (Strait Regional) has proposed the consolidation and closure of up to one third of existing schools in the district. It was also indicated, in the report, that the high school in Lockeport was another possible target for closure. This raised concern among some Lockeport residents that they would lose their high school. It must be made clear that no decision has been made about the future of the school and any interpretation otherwise is incorrect.
The Lockeport High School has an excellent reputation throughout North America and it is apparent that local residents are prepared to fight to keep their school open.
In fact the school has received the Inviting Schools Award for its unique programs and efforts at keeping kids in school.
Kent Balish, Vice Principal, explains that the school has developed a student centred approach to learning instead of a teacher centred approach.
With about 160 students, this small rural high school has been able to succeed where many other schools have failed.
It started in the early 1980's when governments realized that the global economy was changing from its previous reliance on natural resources to a technology based system. This meant education was becoming more important, but Canada's drop out rate was around 30%.
For the first time the federal government got involved to help reverse the drop out rates. They introduced a nation wide stay in school program.
In 1989, when Lockeport's major employer, National Sea Products, closed it sent a wave of fear through the community.
Kent Balish explains that the students were also affected by the plant's closure.
"For the first few weeks of school the kids were very quiet. We noticed that they weren't talking about their friends, or new clothes or sports, the usual teen-age conversations. They were in shock, just like the rest of the community. We knew we had to do something."
In 1990-91 the school introduced an extensive stay in school program that changed policies and procedures and developed a school culture that rewarded behaviours in students that were desirable.
For example, students were rewarded for not missing more than three days of any one class. The reward? If you missed less than three days you didn't have to write the exams.
"It was always accepted that staff could get days off during the year. We said students were entitled to a similar benefit.
But if they didn't use those days there was a reward, " explains Balish.
The change to a student centred school produced great results: 1) There was a 30% drop in school absenteeism, 2) The drop out rate fell to less than 1%, 3) The scores on standardized tests went up by 4.04%, 4) School attendance soared to 98%.
The whole change in philosophy did not go unrecognized. Indeed Lockeport was one of a few schools to achieve such dramatic results and received an international award for creating a safe, caring, nurturing and inviting school environment.
Not content to rest on their past results they are now working on a proposal to make the school an even more integral part of the community. They propose turning the school into a community development centre that will allow parents, children, educators, business people and the community at large to work together, through the school, to find solutions to local problems.
For example, Kent Balish envisions the school becoming the natural centre of the community as it tries to cope with problems like violence, unemployment and community pride.
"We need to empower students and our schools to be a part of the solution," says Balish.
The proposal to develop the Lockeport High School into a community development centre is now in Ottawa awaiting a decision on funding. If approved it will mark a new direction, not only for Lockeport, but for schools and communities throughout Canada.
Nova Scotia Women's FishNet has undertaken a new project to examine the effects the downturn in the fishery has had on families in coastal communities.
Mary DesRoches, a director of FishNet, explains that they will be exploring the financial and emotional impacts the downturn in the fishery has had on women and families.
With the help of a small grant from Human Resources Development Canada, a series of kitchen table meetings will be organized in communities throughout the southwest region of Nova Scotia.
DesRoches explains, "What is happening within families is real. We want to get documentation of that."
Reforms to Employment Insurance, the wind down of TAGS and other social reforms are suspected of causing real dislocation and stress for fishing families.
"One of the things we hope to be able to examine is how families have been impacted financially by these changes," says DesRoches.
Nova Scotia Women's FishNet was established to create a network of women who live in fishing families. FishNet develops policies and actions that support women and their families.
Colleena Strahl, office manager for FishNet, explains that by combining different women's views the group strives to find creative solutions to the fishery crises and hopefully help to build more sustainable communities.
Mary DesRoches and FishNet will also explore the changing role of women in fishing families.
"We will talk to grandmothers and use their knowledge and experience to draw some conclusions about how women's roles have changed. The fishery is a family enterprise. It is intergenerational. We are wondering what the future role of
women will be in that enterprise", says DesRoches.
There are presently about 12 FishNet groups throughout the Maritimes.
The final report is expected to be completed by the end of August and Mary DesRoches expects it to be of great benefit to communities, organizations and governments as they try to evaluate the impact fishery policies are having on families and women.
One of Fishnet's ongoing projects is their newsletter. The deadline for submissions for the summer issue is June 30/1997. Any articles must be recieved before this date!
To contact Nova Scotia Women's FishNet call:
(902) 425-4525 or fax (902) 425-7778
Marine Protected Areas
The Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador Has Completed A Two Year Study Of The
Possibility Of Protecting Important Fisheries
And Marine Habitat
By Shelly Bryant
Marine ecosystems are in serious trouble. Fisheries are depleted or collapsed, the oceans are polluted, and tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadian coastal community residents who depend on the ocean for their living face an uncertain future.
It is abundantly clear that the time has come to make serious efforts toward the restoration, conservation and protection of the marine environment. We need to be innovative; to develop new ways of protecting marine habitat and fisheries of the future. The establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) is gaining recognition as one of the best tools available to us to protect the ocean - and its resources - for the future.
The establishment of marine protected areas is a tool that has yet to be employed in marine and fisheries conservation in Canada. But they should be considered. They hold promise as significant contributors to the health of the oceans ecosystems and fisheries. MPAs can act as a sort of "insurance policy" for the ocean, providing a buffer against future ocean management errors. And MPAs can provide important habitat protection for fish - by affording safe, undisturbed places for fish to live and spawn in.
Much work needs to be done before decisions about MPA establishment in Atlantic Canada can be made. The Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador (PAA) has recognized this need, and for the past two years has been actively researching the feasibility and merits of establishing marine protected areas. Their recently published report, The Future of Our Ocean: Investigations into establishing marine protected areas in Newfoundland and Labrador, details the results of the research. It outlines residents' and stakeholders' thoughts and concerns about marine habitat protection, and identifies some of the key challenges on the road to establishing MPAs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The work has been directed by the belief that recent fisheries crises have increased awareness of the marine environment, and that only when marine habitat is protected can marine wildlife and coastal communities be assured of a secure future.
Throughout the research, the PAA contacted nearly 500 people from a wide variety of sectors, including fishers, coastal community residents, indigenous people, environmental group representatives, scientists, government officials, academics, industry, unions, and educators. Secondary research was also conducted into marine conservation initiatives in Canada and other parts of the world, including possible models and legislative mechanisms for the establishment of MPAs.
A key objective of the research was to ensure early involvement of fishers and fishworkers. To facilitate this, researchers travelled throughout the province, holding community meetings to discuss MPAs with coastal community residents and fishers. This was seen as extremely important in establishing trust and to enable the development of innovative, community based management approaches to marine habitat protection.
The research revealed a strong base of support for the protection of marine resources and the establishment of MPAs. People expressed an openness to explore new ideas about marine conservation, and were willing to help develop innovative habitat protection plans. The support was not unqualified however; people were clear about the need for multi-sectoral partnerships and community based approaches to marine habitat conservation. Concern also existed about issues such as the loss of traditional uses of marine areas and resources, including access to coastal fishing areas. Newfoundland and Labrador residents also clearly indicated a need for more information on how the establishment of marine protected areas will mesh with current resource use and marine protection goals.
Future Work
Canada lags behind other areas of the world in marine conservation initiatives. Despite having 243,000 km of coastline (more than any other country in the world), there are only a few small marine areas protected nationally.
In Atlantic Canada, the most commonly protected marine feature to date is seabird colonies. Two key initiatives are underway to protect additional marine areas: Parks Canada is investigating the Bonavista-Funk (Nfld) area in order to establish a National Marine Conservation Area somewhere in the region; further offshore, The Gully, a submarine canyon that lies between Sable Island and Banquereau bank is being investigated as a potential MPA.
"Imagine if 30 years ago we had set aside a corner of the Grand Banks - protecting the fish that spawned and lived there. That single act, by itself, might have prevented the fisheries crises we are now in."
Several things need to occur in order for MPA work to progress: possible MPA sites must be identified, and legal and administrative aspects of MPA establishment must be clarified. Of critical importance, however, is that coastal community residents receive adequate information to enable them to be central players in decision-making around marine protected areas. The Protected Areas Association hopes to play an integral role in helping that process in Newfoundland and Labrador.
For further information contact:
The Protected Areas Association - (709) 726-2603
Communication Secretariat News:
By Wendy Williams
Meetings Begin On Co-management
Two co-management meetings were held between Cape Breton fishermen and the department of Fisheries and Oceans in December and January. Among other topics, DFO discussed the differences between co-management and partnerships. The meetings were basically question and answer sessions which allowed fishermen to ask questions, but gave them very little opportunity to present their own views on co-management.
The idea of going out to fishermen to discuss co-management was presented to DFO by the Communications Secretariat last August. DFO wanted a way to discuss co-management with fishermen and felt that the Communications Secretariat could help them. The members of the board decided that DFO should go ahead with these meetings, but that the Communications Secretariat's only role would be to take minutes at the meetings and make them available on the fax-on-demand. This was to ensure that the process would be open and that the information would be accessible to everyone. More meetings are planned in Scotia-Fundy in the coming months.
We encourage everyone to follow these meetings. Co-management is an important issue that affects all fishermen and your opinions should be heard. Join a fishermen's organization and make your views known. If you would like information on co-management, call the fax-on-demand system for minutes of meetings, and to get a copy of a DFO discussion paper on co-management. As well, many books and articles have been written on co-management, including the Coastal Communities Net-work's work. If you would like more information on co-management, please call the Communications Secretariat for assistance.
Why not let everyone know about the good work your organization is doing for
fishermen?
We would like to have articles about your organization for this newsletter. Fax or mail your articles in to the Communications Secretariat's office and we will publish them in the coming months.
Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters To Meet In Halifax
The first annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters (CCPFH) will be held in Halifax from March 14-16. The CCPFH is an organization that aims to represent fishermen nationally on issues such as professionalization, training and human resource development programs. The Council is a federation of fishermen's organizations in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and British Columbia. The founding members of the Council in this region are: the Eastern Fishermen's Federation, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the PEI Fishermen's Association and the Scotia-Fundy Mobile Gear Fishermen's Association. Check the Communications Secretariat's meeting calendar for the time and location of the meeting.
Do you have a fisheries related question that you would like to have answered?
The Communications Secretariat is here to help fishermen's organizations find the answers to their questions. Contact the office by phone, fax, E-mail or regular mail, and we will try to help. We will publish questions and answers in our newsletter.
We would like to hear from you.
Here's how you can reach us:
18th Floor North
1505 Barrington Street,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
B3J 3K5
Ph: (902) 426-6409
Fax: (902) 426-3118
E-mail: fgcn.fisher.dfosf@sfnet.dfo.ca
Internet: http:www.maritimes.dfo.ca/com_sec/
Fax-On Demand:
(902) 429-2401 (Halifax)
1-800-691-6623 (outside Halifax)
back to top
Point Aconi Fishermen's Association Speaks Out
By Point Aconi Fishermen's Association
Point Aconi is a small tight knit community on Cape Breton Island just north of Sydney near the entrance to the Bras D'Or Lakes. Since the 1930's Point Aconi has been a workplace for people, who live in and out of the community. Throughout the years coal mining and fishing were looked upon as a way of life, in fact, some consider it a part of our heritage.
Over the past 25 years coal has lured three major companies to Point Aconi :
1) Novaco
2) The Cape Breton Development Corporation
3) The Nova Scotia Power Commission.
Each of these corporate citizens have brought benefits to the local area in the form of jobs, but overlooked was the negative impact the fishermen were asked to burden. Much of the industrial development impacted directly on the fishing grounds, however, fishermen were told these "negative impacts" were minimal when compared to the potential economic growth of our community and surrounding areas. It was accepted, but unwanted by fishermen.
As these growing industries developed over the past 25 years, so did the fishing industry. The advance in science and
technology, the expansion of global markets, and a new found awareness for conservation measures, has changed the once traditional way of life into a multimillion dollar business. These modern day fishermen have also become good corporate citizens and their importance to their community must not and will not be overlooked again.
The most recent project to affect the fishing grounds of the Point Aconi fishermen is the dredging of the middle shoal at the mouth of the Great Bras D'Or.
The Little Narrows Gypsum Company proposed in the spring of 1995, to dredge the middle shoal area so that its larger vessels could operate at 100% efficiency rather than the limited 75% currently being implemented. The announcement brought widespread opposition to the project by local residents.
Fishermen were the most concerned as the proposed site could potentially be disastrous to local fishing grounds and eventually trickle down to the local economy. Little Narrows Gypsum Company assured fishermen that affect would be minimal. Despite continued opposition the company proceeded to acquire all necessary licences and permits.
In the Spring of 1996 a final report was released that seemed to address all the concerns of local fishermen. The Big Bras D'Or fishermen were contacted directly and were persuaded to actively take part in the dredging operation. The Point Aconi fishermen, as well as most fishermen in Cape Breton, were busy demonstrating against legislation which would have also seen the demise of commercial fishing. They don't feel they were adequately made aware of the situation, nor the fact that the project was proceeding. It would appear an opportune time to force an issue while most fishermen were preoccupied.
There are a number of excuses which can be argued, but the fact of the matter is, fishermen from Point Aconi were not fully consulted nor were their concerns heard or addressed. The area near the middle shoal and the Bird Islands has been designated by DFO Science, as well as local fishermen, as a nursery site for many species, but particularly cod and haddock. The destruction of these juvenile stocks, which hide in gravel and under kelp on the bottom could result in the groundfish fishery never rebounding in Cape Breton. This fact alone should have been made aware to all fishermen in Cape Breton as well as the Native population.
The project has been halted by court order initiated by the Native people. The project was 90% completed, the damage to the habitat and to local stocks is completed. The fishermen believe fisheries such as lobster, sea urchin, rock crab, mackerel, herring, groundfish and scallops have all been adversely affected.
For these reasons the fishermen who fish these grounds, the people who live in this community, feel that they have been adversely affected, socially and economically by this project.
The Point Aconi Road Community Development Association (PARCDA) was formed in 1976 and has been active since that time in enhancing the community of Point Aconi. The PARCDA was never contacted about the Middle Shoal dredging project at any time, from start to the halting of operations. If they had been consulted, the company and the association could have worked closely together and the project may have been acceptable to all the local residents.
PARCDA believes they were purposely ignored by the company and as a result their hard earned reputation as a community leader has been damaged.
The Point Aconi Fishermen's Association was formed in September of 1996, because of the need to protect themselves. They have recognized the need to unite so as their united voice may speak louder than the individuals. Representatives of the Point Aconi Fishermen's Association have travelled the Maritimes to deliver the wishes of local fishermen at various committees on various species. Point Aconi fishermen believe that they were ignored and discarded by the Little Narrows Gypsum Company.
These fishermen were busy attending meetings in Sydney and Halifax on very urgent matters pertaining directly to their ability to fish, while meetings that they were unaware of, were taking place very close to them, concerning the very grounds they fish on. These fishermen have been directly affected by the dredging on the middle shoal and yet they have not been consulted, and many believe, they were given no consideration whatsoever. The adverse affects are done and cannot be changed now, yet the livelihood of some 15 Point Aconi fishermen and the effects to the local economy have been dismissed as if they were meaningless. The Point Aconi fishermen will not stand by and let this happen to them. They are willing to fight for their livelihoods and are ready for the long battle if necessary.
Unfortunately the project is 90% complete and the Point Aconi fishermen were unaware of its progress or its design until it was too late. They have not been able to participate and monitor their own grounds so that they may be certain their livelihoods are not in jeopardy. The Point Aconi fishermen pray that the damage done to the grounds was minimal. We are sure, if given the opportunity, we could have been cooperative with the Little Narrows Gypsum Company and we would have been sure all species of fish were considered and taken care of. The present situation occurs simply because of total negligence on the part of the company to inform and address any concerns of all who were affected.
The Point Aconi fishermen are not being opportunistic because they see a chance to get some easy money, but are genuinely concerned about the damage caused by this dredging to all the local stocks. We do not possess any ill feelings toward our neighbours from Big Bras D'Or and wish them well. We only wanted the opportunity to study the plans and input any recommendations we may have had that would have addressed any of our own concerns. We share the grounds and the resource. We would like to have shared the custodianship as well. Only time will tell. Hopefully there will be fishermen from Point Aconi in the 21st century, but the fishermen of today are not allowing anyone to overlook them anymore.
The present situation has made Point Aconi Citizens very skeptical about dealing with companies, which is unfortunate for an area trying so hard to attract good corporate citizens. A satisfactory conclusion is necessary and demanded by the people of Point Aconi.
More To Say About Dredging Project
Two community groups have submitted articles in response to the cover story in the last issue of Coastal Communities News. The story described the conflicts and turmoil caused by a dredging project undertaken at Middle Shoal in Cape Breton.
The two groups feel there is much to be learned from the experience and want to share their viewpoint with other communities.
A Valuable Lesson For Coastal Communities
By Kevin Squires
Appearances, we are often told, can be deceiving - and the corollary to this theorem is the truth generally lies somewhere between the reported facts and the boring details.
So it is with the Middle shoal dredging project, which the last issue of this paper described as having been the subject of dispute due to bad science, poor regulatory judgement, and even worse public communication.
As a local fisherman who took an active role in overseeing the good conduct of that project, I must take exception to that description - but not because disagreement didn't exist. Rather, while public controversy makes great press, such coverage often omits important details. For example, the court decision which ended the project found the process by which permission was granted to be at fault, but did not condemn the actual project. And not only was the controversy hardly as enormous as described, but much of it could have been avoided, had the complainants sought an active role earlier in the game.
And for coastal communities faced with development proposals, there lies a truly valuable lesson - communities must recognize their responsibilities and respond in ways which identify their concerns, assure their participation, and protect their interests. Doing so not only protects local interests, but it also leaves a community stronger for the experience. This article will try to tell a bit of that side of this story, one which has so far, largely gone untold.
This was not the first encounter with industrial development for local fishers, and our reaction to this project reflected a number of earlier frustrations. These include the infamous Point Aconi power plant, a strip mine in the same area, a limestone quarry located about one kilometre from our wharf, and a proposal to build a large gravel quarry a few kilometres from where we fish lobsters, mackerel, and scallops.
In the case of Point Aconi, we were unable to participate in that project's community liaison committee, despite the fact that many of our members fish immediately adjacent to the plant site. In the case of the strip mine, many cases of unacceptable environmental practice were reported to both Fisheries, and Environment officials, with no positive response or result. As to the limestone quarry, it only became known when announced in the local press, there never having been discussion with local residents on its potential effects, or how best to manage them.
As a result, we are left with an increasingly large and unattractive excavation on an otherwise beautiful mountain, as well as the loss of a traditional herring fishing area, seemingly due to fine sediment which emanates from the operations. And finally, in the case of the proposed gravel quarry, our interests as nearby fishers were sought only in terms of the number of traps we fished in the area.
These experiences, over the past ten years or so, had left us with a rather cynical attitude towards both government regulators and private developers, since it appeared that industrial development had little regard for the active interest of those who might be affected by them. For John Fitzgerald of Little Narrows Gypsum, who approached our fishermen's group with details of this dredging project, this meant an initial response which was resoundingly negative. So how did we come to be actively involved in the project? The answer is that our position did not change overnight, but rather came about as a result of logical inquiry, and of being able to ensure our interests were protected.
Despite our turning thumbs down to the proposal to dredge the Middle Shoal, the project proponents continued to seek not only regulatory approval, but accommodation of those fishing concerns on which our reaction was based. Faced with such persistence, we contacted a number of people with expertise as consulting oceanographers and biologists, environmental regulators, and shipping pilots. None of these raised any great alarms, assuming the project could be conducted under the watchful eye of regulatory authority, as well as local fishers.
Our next step - still looking for ammunition to fight this proposal - was to seek funding for a more extensive review of the information accompanying the applications for approval of this project. This was not to be found through public sources, but a request to the proponent brought a positive response and we proceeded to hire an independent scientific consultant.
He concluded that although the project would not be in the best interests of local fishers, but pointed out that,"...most impacts are either unlikely, of minor significance, or both". He further stated that, "...for an engineering project of its size, the proposed dredging would carry remarkably few problems", and finally pointed out that monitoring the project could be beneficial both immediately and for future research, particularly, "...if it was co-directed by the fishermen and so helped them develop the skills they will need in the co-managed fishery of the future". This was hardly the unequivocal condemnation of this project we had been hoping for.
So here we were - neither inquiries to a number of knowledgeable people, nor resorting to independent scientific opinion had armed us to oppose this project - how were we to proceed? Although outside opinions had reduced our fears, we still had a number of specific concerns, which we put forward as needing to be monitored, should the project proceed. These were the direct loss of lobster and other species at both dredge and deposit sites, the disposition of sediment from dredging and dumping, and the effect of dredging operations on fish migrating through the work area.
In discussions with the proponent, it seemed these concerns could be accommodated, and that much of the work involved could be done by our members. This would have the double benefit of offsetting the loss of fishing income which monitoring the project would cause; and perhaps more importantly, placing our eyes and ears constantly on site, where we could see if everything was going all right.
The contrast between our previous experiences and how this proponent both accommodated our concerns, is stark indeed, and it explains why we were able to move from a position of absolute opposition to one of positive engagement. With our concerns addressed, Little Narrows Gypsum was free to concentrate on satisfying regulatory and other identified interests, in order that they might secure the jobs of their quarry workers, which was the reason for the proposed dredging in the first place. And in the present local employment environment this was no small matter.
As project start up neared, we developed monitoring plans, and means to share the work among local fishers displaced from normal activity by this project, and to whom the project represented the greatest risk. Besides assuring compliance with regulatory requirements, this would give an opportunity to learn how scientific monitoring work is conducted; and, as mentioned earlier, a chance to see that operations were meeting the standards we had agreed to.
So for our part, we had come to a position on this project through a logical process of inquiry and investigation; we had achieved comfort with it by making sure our specific concerns were addressed; and we had negotiated a place for ourselves in the project which would ensure that our decision remained valid, by attending to
those concerns. And generally speaking, we remain content with how this project was conducted. But the public perception, if the last issue of CCN News is to be believed, is somewhat less generous; a few words on the criticisms we received might then be in order.
One such concern regards the loss of juvenile cod habitat from the dumping of dredged material, which was raised by a fisheries scientist who has done research in the area. His work, however, was itself reviewed by a scientific panel which concluded that the area in question was, "likely marginal juvenile habitat", and that the placement of material, "might even enhance cod production over time".
The direct loss of lobsters at both dredging and dump sites was another subject of contention, but the fact here is that both areas were monitored by both traps and video camera throughout the project, and local fishers - who by the way, intend to fish lobsters this spring - felt the program adequately protected this important resource. This monitoring program required material placement to cease on one site when lobster numbers exceeded 0.3 animals per trap, a number seen as low even by some DFO scientists, but one which local fishers felt appropriate, given their knowledge of lobster movements in the autumn.
The issue of poor communication was referred to both locally, and in the CCN News, but the specifics of these comments are unclear. In fact, the proponent held meetings in various communities and an open house locally, and followed up with newsletters on project progress. And local fishers involved in the project contacted both individual fishers and groups from neighbouring communities, and regularly invited anyone interested - including local press - to visit the project and comment on the monitoring activities.
Of all the matters seen to be a problem with this project, perhaps the most contentious is that local fishers received money from the proponent during the course of the project. In fact, compensation for loss of fishing income was a relatively small amount, and was payable only on the condition that one waived the right to sue for future damages.
Above that, our fishermen's group took a contract for the boats, deckhands and inspectors required to monitor and supply the dredging operation, all services which would have been required, whether we were involved or not; and all were provided at industry standard rates. By taking this contract we were able to gain, for the community, work which might otherwise have been contracted to outside interests, and this approach allowed local input which recognized elements of risk, displacement from normal activity, and local responsibility.
A number of questions can be posed which put this event in the context of the issue of development in general, such as how should a community react to proposals for local development? Does a community have any responsibility beyond its recognized geographic boundaries? Should a community consider whether benefits to other communities warrant risk to itself? Does environmental responsibility preclude all development, no matter how low the risk, careful the proponents, or extensive the monitoring? And what basic requirements must be fulfilled to ensure responsible community participation in a given project?
These questions are not simple, but the Middle Shoal dredging project demonstrates that development can proceed in a manner which balances competing interests. In this case, that balance meant including the community and attending to their needs, while accomplishing increased job security at Little Narrows Gypsum.
Our approach to this project also left us with a number of valuable lessons, such as how much we can accomplish by working together; and how important it is for a community to recognize its responsibility and participate in development. We became familiar with scientific monitoring practices and showed a willingness to work towards increasing knowledge of local conditions. And perhaps most important, we learned that we can protect our interests by becoming involved.
If such a pro-active attitude became the norm, it is certain that our communities would derive the broadest possible benefit from any given type of development. It is also likely that our understanding of future events such as the Middle Shoal dredging project might be more informed by the facts, and less deceived by appearances.
In each issue, Coastal Communities News provides space to reprint the opinions of our readers. We want to hear your opinion on any topic you believe is of interest to our coastal communities.
Write to:
PO Box 225,
14 Court St, Suite 200,
Truro, N.S.
B2N 3H7
The views expressed in the opinion section do not necessarily represent the views of the Coastal Communities Network, its members, or the editorial committee of Coastal Communities News.
back to top
Arthur Bull Believes That Communities Need
More Local Control Over Their Destinies.
Arthur Bull spent most of his summers growing up along Nova Scotia's Digby Neck. So when he decided to move to the area six years ago it was almost like coming home.
Today Arthur is an active community member who is trying to help the community develop a sustainable future.
With a background in adult education and community development and more recently as a free lance writer and editor, Bull has written two handbooks on community economic development. The first is, Linking Learning to Community Economic Development and the other is, Down Home Learning - Developing Adult Literacy Work in Rural Canada.
Today Bull puts his background, knowledge and energy to work in his local community. He is an active and one of the driving forces behind two community based groups on Digby Neck; the Digby Neck Community Development Association and the Fundy Fixed Gear Council, an organization made up of three fishermen's groups; MFU Local #9, Digby County Inshore Fishermen's Association, and the Island's Inshore Fishermen's Association.
It is the Fundy Fixed Gear Council that has been his biggest committment during the past year, as the group has worked to develop and implement a community based co-management system. As their current chairman, Bull has been instrumental in helping to launch one of Nova Scotia's first community based co-management systems.
As Bull defines it, community based co-management is about allowing the people who are most affected by the fishery to make the management decisions about its future. The whole effort to organize and implement community based co-management got started in the spring of 1996 and to date about 230 fishermen in the area have signed on to take control of their own fishery.
"There is a growing sense that people realize that they will have to take control of more and more of their own lives. Government is not going to be as active as it once was", says Bull. Although he is not a fisherman himself, local fishermen felt that Arthur was a good candidate to lead their efforts. They wanted someone who could put in the time, go to meetings, develop agendas and most importantly understand the crucial role of the community.
Arthur is quick to point out that fishermen direct the organization and he follows up on their ideas and wishes. His commmittment to empowering communities is evident as he speaks about the need for communities to get in the driver's seat. "There are just too many plans being made about the future of coastal communities without any thought as to how they will impact on people. Unless we get organized we will be left out of the picture."
Whether it is getting more control over local fishery decision or fighting to keep the local school open, Arthur Bull is determined to see his community be the author of its own destiny.
back to top
back to top
Q: I recently heard that the government announced changes to the new Employment Insurance System. What were the changes and why did they make them?
A: You heard correctly. On March 5, the federal government did announce some changes to the recently introduced Employment Insurance system.
The Minister of Human Resources, Pierre Pettigrew, has announced the establishment of Adjustment Projects in 29 high unemployment regions. The projects, to run until November 15, 1998, will look at two alternative ways of calculating Employment Insurance benefits to increase claimants' incentives to accept "small weeks" of work.
The intention of Employment Insurance reform was to ensure that every hour of work counts towards eligibility for benefits and encourages people to take all available work. However, when an individual has a combination of "big" and "small" weeks of work, their "small weeks" can lower their benefit levels. Both employers and individuals have identified this as a disincentive to accept shorter work weeks.
The Adjustment Projects will enable individuals to "bundle" small weeks (ie: weeks of less than $150) in 18 regions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and exclude these weeks for benefit calculation purposes in 11 regions in Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The areas selected for the projects are those where the unemployment rate has been consistently above 10 per cent in each month over the last four months -November 1996 to February 1997, inclusive - those areas where jobs are difficult to find and as a result where individuals may be the most reliant on the Employment Insurance program.
The projects will be implemented in two stages beginning in the 14 highest unemployment regions, excluding urban centres, on May 4, 1997 and expanding into the remaining 15 regions on August 31, 1997. For claims made during the course of the projects, individuals' benefits will be calculated by "excluding" or "bundling" "small weeks" worked since January 5, 1997, with the exception of any "small weeks" needed to meet the minimum divisor.
The adjustment projects will be in place until November 15, 1998 and will be monitored and assessed during that time by the government to measure their impact. Anyone filing a claim prior to November 15, 1998, will continue to receive their benefit as calculated under the project for the full length of their claim.
The cost of these projects will be $107 million in 1997-98 and $127 million in 1998-99 and $13 million in 1999-2000. It will be funded from within the Employment Insurance Program and related measures.
Q: What Is A Small Week?
A: A "small" week is considered to be a week with earnings of less than $150. Bundling means that within the rate calculation period, average earnings will be calculated based on the "big" ($150 or more) weeks of work and any small weeks required to meet the minimum divisor. The remaining small weeks will be bundled to create weeks which are equal to the level of the average earnings.
For example, in a region where the minimum divisor is 14, an individual has 12 weeks at $200, 13 weeks at $80 and one week at $130; the average earnings would be calculated using the 12 $200 weeks and two of the best "small" weeks, i.e., one at $130 and one at $80 (for an average of $186.40). The remaining 12 $80 weeks would be combined to make five bundled weeks for a total of $932.00 (5 X $186.40) or five full weeks for the divisor. The average earnings would remain at $186.40 as any residual amounts would be ignored.
In this example, after bundling and ignoring residual amounts to establish average earnings, the benefit rate would be calculated using a divisor of 19 because the individual has worked more than the minimum. The weekly benefit rate would be ($3542 divided by 19) X .55 (basic benefit rate) = $102.50 week.
All "big" weeks (weeks with earnings of $150 or more) that fall within the rate calculation period will be used to determine the average earnings. If the number of big weeks is less than the minimum divisor the best "small" weeks (earnings of less than $150) will be used to bring the number of weeks up to meet the minimum divisor. The remaining small weeks will be excluded for benefit calculation purposes; however, they will count for determining eligibility for, and duration of, benefits.
For example: in a region where the minimum divisor is 14, an individual has 12 weeks at $200, 13 weeks at $80 and one week at $130. The average earnings would be calculated using the 12 $200 weeks and two of the best small weeks (i.e. one at $130 and one at $80; total $2610). The remaining 12 $80 weeks would be ignored in the calculation of the benefit level. Therefore, using the minimum divisor (14) in that region, the weekly benefit rate would be ($2610 divided by 14) X .55 (basic benefit rate) = $102.50 week.
Average earnings are determined by using either the minimum divisor
(i.e. 14 to 22 depending on the unemployment rate) or the actual weeks
of work in the 26 week period, whichever is higher. Therefore, if
the number of big weeks worked in the 26 week period is less than
the minimum divisor, earnings from the largest of the small weeks
worked in the 26 week period will be used to meet the minimum divisor.
back to top
Coastal Communities News
Acknowledgements
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
The 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
in the Coastal Communities Network
CCN's strength lies in its membership, which is
made up of organizations rooted in Nova Scotia's coastal communities.
The range of member organizations is very broad, including churches,
fish harvester groups, municipalities, community and regional economic
development agencies, unions, universities, and local community
groups. CCN welcomes the participation of any organization that
represents the interests of a coastal community or issue and is
interested in working together with similar groups across the province.
Your organization can become involved in a number of ways:
— by participating in regular monthly meetings
of the CCN membership. These are held in Truro (usually on the first
Tuesday of each month), and allow representatives from member organizations
to review what is happening in coastal communities across the province,
plan actions on issues of common concern, and review progress on
CCN-sponsored projects;
— by getting on our mailing list to receive
regular copies of Coastal Communities News. Send us your
name and address by mail or fax, or call us directly;
— by contributing written articles to Coastal
Communities News, and so letting everyone know what's happening
in your community;
— by taking part in CCN workshops and information
sessions. Special events like this are held on topics of importance
to coastal communities (for example, community economic development,
co- management in the fishery, etc);
— by inquiring about CCN's resource library,
which includes information, reports, and studies on topics that
affect the future and sustainability of coastal communities.
You may contact us at:
back
to top
