Community Conservation Research Network |

Innu Nation, Labrador, Canada

CCRN — Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:28:11 +0000

Key Message

Innu of all ages are concerned with preserving their culture and language – inseparable from Innu identity. However many Innu youth are less immersed in their culture and language as they face pressures to seek “…work opportunities, often outside of their communities.”
Innu are shaping their future in a broad range of ways: participating in local, regional, national and Indigenous-specific meetings about “resources” (e.g. caribou); land use (e.g. Mealy Mountain National Park); co-creating a film that illuminates their perspective on their land and way of being: “Nakatuenita: Respect”
Innu Guardians have an increasingly important and recognized role in observing, monitoring, and communicating about the animals, plants, rivers and lakes on Innu lands

(1) Libby Dean, (2) Richard Nuna and (3) Trudy Sable
(1) CCRN, (2) Richard Nuna, Innu Nation, (3) Trudy Sable, Saint Mary’s University, Nova Scotia, Canada
Key contact: trudy.sable@smu.ca

Community Introduction

After approximately 8,000 years of living within their ancestral lands, Nitassinan, the Innu word for their customary lands and waters, the Innu of (what is now called) Labrador, Canada, were “settled” in communities in the 1960s following the entrance of Newfoundland/Labrador into confederation in 1949.

Prior to this, the Innu, formerly called the Montagnais-Naskapi, lived across a wide range of territory which straddled the border of present-day Labrador and Quebec. Throughout this landscape, they followed the seasonal migrations of caribou, their most important sustenance physically and spiritually, as well as seasonal migrations of birds and fish. With settlement into two communities –Sheshatshiu and Davis Inlet, which was later relocated to Natuashish – came various government institutions to deal with the consequences of cultural change, including what many Innu perceive as a “foreign” educational system, initially missionary led. The Innu were finally recognized as First Nations under the Indian Act of Canada in 2002 (Sheshatshiu) and 2005 (Natuashish), having not been recognized and granted First Nations status earlier, and having never signed any treaties.

Innu communities in Labrador, Canada

The Innu Nation of Labrador has been in the negotiation process with the federal government of Canada for their Land Claim since 1977. Land Claim settlements in Canada consist of agreements between the federal government and Indigenous groups (e.g. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) regarding specified territory and set the terms for a wide range of related land-use rights. These may include financial recompense for land already being used, for example. One of the most valued aspects of a Land Claim agreement for Indigenous groups is having an undisputed “voice” about what happens on their land, as well as reaping benefits from activities that occur on that land (e.g. financial benefit from resource development or tourism). The impact of many of these activities have occurred for centuries – with huge financial gain for outside entities – without recompense to the Innu and other Indigenous communities who live in this region. A similar history exists around the entire globe.

Filming Nakatuenita [photo: Trudy Sable]

Sheshatshiu and Natuashish are considered to be “reserves” under the Indian Act. Sheshatshiu is a thirty-minute drive from Goose Bay, Labrador, which grew around the creation of a NATO air force base during World War II. Natuashish is only accessible by plane and snowmobile, or by boat when the ice breaks up. The land of the Innu includes tundra and boreal forest, which they use for cultural and livelihood purposes, as well as spiritual sustenance. Many of the Innu, particularly the older generations and Tshishennuat (Elders) spend long periods of time at traditional camping areas in nutshimit, the country, where they live directly off the land from hunting animals, fishing, and gathering various berries and medicines. With the arrival of development projects, an increasing number of Innu find work in the forestry and fisheries industries and, more recently, the Muskrat Falls hydro-electric development project. Some of this work is specifically stipulated to be “for Innu” in Income Benefit Agreements (IBAs) negotiated between the Innu and developers, however the work usually has requirements that do not fit with Innu customs, such as living on the land periodically. It is unknown what work opportunities there will be for Innu in the newly created Mealy Mountains National Park, adjacent to and encompassing their customary land.

Being Innu

The Innu have experienced rapid change since settlement in communities in the 1960s. Lifestyles have changed dramatically since then, and many of the social plagues of colonization have accompanied the Innu communities. Many of the Innu, particularly the Tshishennuat (Elders), are concerned about the youth and the passing on of their culture. Many younger Innu are speaking English instead of their language, Innu Aimun. Fewer youth live off the land as the Tshishennuat once had, and many have never been “in the bush” at all. Tshishennuat grew up living off the land and speaking only Innu Aimun. The Innu Aimun word, nutshimit encompasses all aspects of living on the land.

Innu Camp [photo: Trudy Sable]

Innu Elders are concerned that their language and knowledge of the land will be lost. Many Elders and other community members have long emphasized the importance of being connected to the land and experiencing the intergenerational learning by living together in nutshimit as integral to remaining rooted in the inherent environmental, social and cultural values, as well as critical life skills that are part of what it means to be Innu. Language is considered inseparable from Innu identity and the conservation of the land. The language holds the knowledge of the land and its many features.

The time spent by Innu camping and hunting within their traditional camping areas has become dramatically reduced, and the youth are increasingly speaking English, a foreign language. The Elders talked about the land as their life, as their source of food and medicine, and who they are as Innu (Sable et. al. 2006). Many say they get sick when they are not able to go on the land. A select group of Tshishennuat participate as advisors to the Land Claim process, but as many of the Tshishennuat are dying, much of the language of the land goes with them.

The middle-aged generation grew up spending time on the land and following their traditional practices and beliefs, but also living in the communities and attending mostly the lower grades (up to Grade 8) of Western education. Though still retaining their language and holding much of the knowledge of the land, many are also victims of the diseases of colonization – diabetes, cancer, heart problems, alcoholism, etc.

The youth are a rapidly increasing demographic in Innu communities, as is true in other Indigenous groups. Youth are generally spending less time on the land than their parents did, and some of them have never been on nutshimit. However, there is quite a bit of variability between the two communities of Sheshatshiu and Natuashish, Natuashish being more remote. More and more of the Innu youth are attending their community schools, while some opt to attend the provincial schools. Gradually, the rate of high school graduation is increasing, and a number of graduates are finding employment within their community or with new development projects. Though many still speak Innu Aimun as their first language, the younger children are learning English as their first language, while re-learning Innu Aimun at their school where efforts are being made to develop culturally relevant content.

Youth research participants, Sheshatshiu [photo: Libby Dean]

It is worth noting that while this article is mostly about “conservation and livelihoods”, Innu communities are simultaneously working on other pressing issues related to health, education, culture, governance, transportation and infrastructure, to name a few that require a huge amount of time, resources and effort, at times by the same small pool of people.

Innu Conservation and Livelihoods – Challenges & Opportunities

The Innu Nation is currently in the process of Land Claim settlements, an arduous, multi-year process. This includes developing a “land use” plan for designating different levels of land use and management practices for both the tundra and boreal forest environments they inhabit, e.g., those for cultural use, those for economic development, those for recreation, etc., once the land claims are settled. The Innu are, and have been for years, involved in numerous negotiations concerning resource development projects within Nitassinan, as well as with provincial and federal government agencies to deal with multiple levels of land-use, e.g. forestry, fishery, caribou and migratory bird management.

Specific to the resource development projects, such as the Voisey’s Bay nickel mine and the current Muskrat Falls hydro-electric development project, the Innu have negotiated Economic Impact Benefit Agreements ensuring training and jobs, as part of their settlement agreements with the corporations. These agreements can bring employment to the communities and provide training and jobs with attractive salaries (e.g. heavy equipment operation, catering, maintenance, environmental monitoring). Economic incentives are part of a larger debate around the benefits of relatively short-term and commonly (but not exclusively) lower skill / lower salary jobs, versus long-term sustainable development and conservation of ancestral lands. As with any community experiencing the possibility of resource development in their homeland, not all Innu share the same views on how to move forward – and often the discussion comes down to a development vs. tradition polarity which neither acknowledges the full complexity of the issues nor suggests a clear path forward.

Community Initiatives

Innu continue their efforts to protect their ancestral lands and way of life, as well as to balance their livelihood needs and engage with resource development in their homelands. Currently, the Innu are continuing to bring the issue of caribou populations and harvest restrictions to the fore. There have been decades of discussions already, and recently there have been some strides in helping non-Innu start to understand that the Innu relationship with atik (caribou) is much more than numbers. Innu are in the process of developing their own environmental policy, an effort the Community Conservation Research Network supported.

With limited resources, Innu are working at many levels to gain traction on the issues that are most urgently arising in their communities. These are some of the environmental and conservation initiatives Innu are currently working on:

Developing Innu-based environmental standards and land management regulations that are based on Innu cultural values
Communicating with the people Innu interact with—and the Innu—so they understand why the Innu need Innu-based policies, and what these policies are and mean
Helping the Innu understand the overall relationship between the Innu and the provincial and federal government – and what the impact is of policies regarding Innu management of their own land and Innu policies for their own land
Understanding what Innu want to see on the ground once the land claims are settled

Research, Capacity-Building and Consultation

The Innu have a decades-long relationship with researchers from universities, including Dr. Trudy Sable from Saint Mary’s University (SMU) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, which partners with the Innu Nation Environment Department. The Innu also partner with NGOs, researchers and consultants who continue to work closely with them, as they traverse the many layers of negotiations and development planning – and getting their voice heard more widely. The Innu have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Saint Mary’s University, which demonstrates mutual benefit and has resulted in the Innu Nation’s participation within the Community Conservation Research Network. With support from CCRN, the Innu did a number of things to support the development of their environmental policy. As part of this work, the Innu and invited researchers conducted interviews and focus groups with Sheshatshiu community members (including youth and elders) to better understand what conservation means to them and its connection to restoring, protecting and maintaining their traditional lifestyle.

In addition, a member of the Innu Nation environment department staff, Helen Andrew, came to Saint Mary’s University for three weeks to gain practical skills training (e.g. report writing, project management, and negotiation skills) and attend classes, lectures and public talks on environmental issues and policy, resulting in two certificates from the university.

Helen Andrew, Innu Researcher, receiving certificates for Saint Mary’s University [photo courtesy of Libby Dean]

In Sheshatshiu, a multi-day workshop developed and coordinated by Richard Nuna and Trudy Sable was held to discuss the development of environmental policy based on the views of the Innu. It was held at the school and included Innu elders, guardians, staff of the environment department from Natuashish and Sheshatshiu, the Saint Mary’s University project lead, one SMU researcher, the CCRN director, Environment Canada regional staff, and some members of the community. In order to gain a greater understanding of the environmental issues in the region, of the implementation and development process of an environmental policy, on the impacts and benefits of an environmental policy, and on how the Innu can benefit from and be involved in the policy process, Innu representatives, along with CCRN researchers, met with provincial and federal governments. Though the Newfoundland provincial government plays a larger role in the various Innu Land Claims processes than the Federal government, Environment Canada does play a significant role. In meeting the Senior Aboriginal Consultant to Environment Canada, a number of useful points were raised in how the Innu could negotiate land claims up front that would benefit their needs once claims are settled. Meetings such as this are places where Innu are increasingly participating as partners – rather than recipients of one-way information – in discussing the future of their land, and the policies that relate to it.

Practical Outcomes

Understanding, Developing and Participating in Policy

Innu are becoming stronger participants in the decisions which affect their future – especially in regard to conservation and livelihoods. The Innu Guardians are gaining skills and take a “stronger place at the table” now in discussions on caribou, land use, and more. Innu have a more respected “voice” in these discussions. In 2018, the film, ‘Nakatuenita: Respect’ was screened in Halifax, Nova Scotia with the Grand Chief, Gregory Rich and three Innu Guardians present. The film was a co-production between the Innu Nation’s environment director, Richard Nuna, and Dr. Trudy Sable of SMU/CCRN. The film, approximately one hour long, includes unique footage of Innu ancestral lands and features in-depth interviews with many community members to document and communicate the connection they have with the land – and the interconnected environmental, social and cultural values.

Nakatuenita film crew on the land [photo: Kent Martin]

Living and Communicating About Nakatuenita

As Innu travel their time-worn paths they are simultaneously creating new ways of being in the world, and of showing that Nakatuenita (Respect), is an inextricable part of being Innu. People who are working with Innu and who are doing anything on or in Innu ancestral lands and waters are expected to meet them along these physical and metaphorical pathways and to travel, listen and learn side-by-side with respect. The Innu are developing the means to demand this respect. There is no other way forward into the unknown future.

View Nakatuenita Respect - click here

Watch the Nakatuenita: Respect Trailer

References

Ashini, Daniel. “David Confronts Goliath: the Innu of Ungava versus the NATO Alliance”. In Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country. Boyce Richardson, ed. Summerhill Press, The Assembly of First Nations.

Loring, Stephen: Princes and Princesses of ragged fame: Innu archaeology and ethnohistory in Labrador. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9233093/

Nakatuenita: Respect. A film produced by Trudy Sable and Richard Nuna. Director, Cinematographer, Editor: Kent Martin. Funded through the CCRN with additional support from the Innu Nation of Labrador, 2019

Pepamuteiati Nitassinat Website: innuplaces.ca

Sable, Trudy with Geoff Howell, Dave Wilson, and Peter Penashue. “The Ashkui Project: Linking Western Science and Innu Environmental Knowledge.” Local Science vs. Global Science: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development, ed. by Paul Sillitoe, Ph.D. New York: Berghahn Books (Oxford). August 2006.

Trant, Andrew, John D. Jacobs, Trudy Sable. “Teaching and learning about climate change with Innu Environmental Guardians.” In, Polar Geography, Vol. 35, Issue 3-4, 2012

Acknowledgements

Gratitude to Nitassinan, and all that it is and has been to the Innu.
Special thanks to Helen Andrew for her work on this project.
Thanks to Patrick Larter (CCRN) for work on an earlier draft of this community story.
Our deep appreciation to:
Grand Chief Gregory Rich
Deputy Grand Chief, Etienne Rich
Manager, Environment: Richard Nuna
Fishery Guardian: Sebastien Piwas
Fishery Guardian: Hank Rich
CCRN Innu Researcher: Helen Andrew
CCRN / SMU Research Assistant: Libby Dean
Land Claims Negotiator: Sylvester Antoine
Translator and Production Assistant and Film participant: Basile Penashue
Film Participants: Mikau Andrew and Shipu Penashue
Film participants: Christine and Prote Poker
Film Participants: Snowden Piwas and Antonia Jacobish
Film Participant: Kathleen Nuna
Film Participant: Mary Adele Penashue
Film Participant: Chief, Eugene Hart
Film Participant: Raphael Gregoire
Film Participant: Joseph Mark
Grand Chief’s Communication Officer: Donna Paddon
Innu Nation staff, all those who assisted with the film
David Hart: Musician
Ravin Wick and Lynda Pokue: Innu Nation Finance Office
Tony Charles, PhD, Director of the Community Conservation Research Network, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Celebrating Communities

CCRN — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 18:28:18 +0000

Here, four Nova Scotia communities are highlighted in a celebration of community level governance, traditions, and culture. At the first plenary event of the 2018 Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods conference, speakers shared insight, experience and reflections from their respective communities.

Bear River First Nation was presented by Christiana Louwa (an indigenous woman from Kenya, director of the El Molo Forum, and co-chair of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples) on behalf of Dr. Sherry Pictou, a Mi’kmaw woman from L’sɨtkuk (water cuts through high rocks) who works in Women’s Studies at Mount Saint Vincent University. She has served the broader Mi’kmaw community in several capacities including being elected Chief for her community and as a former co-chair of the World Forum of Fisher People.

Sheet Harbour was showcased by Sandra Moser, Executive Director, Sheet Harbour Chamber of Commerce & Civic Affairs. She described local work taking place in community development and in developing Eastern Shore-wide sustainable tourism through the Wild Islands Tourism Advancement Partnership.

The entrepreneurial cultural work of the Eskasoni First Nation was detailed by Stan Johnson, who spoke about environmentally sustainable promotion, development of ecotourism businesses such as guided walks on Goat Island Trail, and work with fisheries. Stan is a Mi’kmaq from Eskasoni, in Cape Breton, with 10 years’ experience at the Eskasoni Economic Development Corporation.

Spryfield (a neighbourhood of Halifax) was presented by Bruce Holland, founding member of the Spryfield Business Association and Parkview newspaper. He provided insight regarding how business development and community spirit go hand-in-hand.

Key Themes:

Governance, Rights & Conflict, Indigenous Issues, Engagement, Education & Empowerment, Places & Spaces

Video and presented material:

Note that the video is ‘audio only’ for the first 7 minutes. Below the video is a visual PowerPoint that opens in a new tab when clicked.

Sea and Indigenous people

CCRN — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:58:06 +0000

Directorate of Coastal and Small Island Utilization, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of Indonesia in cooperation with Faculty of Human Ecology from Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) and CCRN researchers (Dr. Arif Satria and Ahmad Mony) in Indonesia have launched a book titled “Laut dan Masyarakat Adat” or “Sea and Indigenous Peoples”. This book is the result of research on five indigenous communities inhabiting five small islands, Kawio Island, Kawaluso Island, Talaud Island, Liki Island, and Selaru Island. These five islands have direct border with neighboring countries such as Malaysia, Philippines, Palau, and Australia. The launching of this book brings Dr. Arif Satria as the main speaker and Prof. Dr. Dietrich G. Bengen from Fisheries and Marine Science Faculty – IPB as the discussant.

The book explores several topics, such as: defining Indigenous / local communities, economic and institutional profiles, problems and challenges facing Indigenous peoples, agrarian (land-based) bias, empowerment gaps, and roadmaps towards indigenous / local community empowerment. It is hoped that the publication of this book can provide an overview of the condition and existence of Indigenous and tribal peoples in Indonesia, especially in small islands, in order to maintain its sustainability. Currently the book is in Indonesian, however, those interested in the book can visit: https://kompas.id/gerai/belanja/buku/laut-dan-masyarakat-adat/

Book Review Event of “Sea and Indigenous People”

The launching of this book was attended by a number of stakeholders such as the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Village, Ministry of Bappenas, and a number of international and local NGOs. Dr. Arif Satria explained that the writing of this book became the foundation for the dissemination of the discourse of coastal and marine resource management based on indigenous peoples found in this research. National policies that have made room for the implementation of community resource management practices should be welcomed with innovative research to formulate effective and sustainable policy and action plans.

This book has been adopted as a basis in formulating policies and action plans for the empowerment of indigenous peoples who inhabit small islands by the Directorate of Coastal and Small Island Utilization, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia. The parties commit to continue similar research for other indigenous communities, and will use the SES approach (social ecological system) as the main approach of research. It is expected that appropriate coastal and marine resource management models will surface and will be implemented in indigenous communities in Indonesia.

Information in this post, and all images, were provided by CCRN Researcher Ahmad Mony.

The Power of Community: Effective Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods

CCRN — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:40:55 +0000

This webinar presents some of the insights coming from the work of the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) over the past six years. Tony Charles, CCRN Director, explores the linkages of Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods by drawing on the network’s case studies of communities around the world, the environmental and livelihood challenges they face, and their efforts to respond to those challenges. The webinar highlights three big messages. (1) A diverse ‘portfolio’ of environmental stewardship is used by communities worldwide to safeguard local economies and livelihoods. (2) There is a crucial positive feedback of local communities engaging in environmental stewardship, producing healthier environments that contribute to community well-being and resilience. (3) Government support is important for the success of community conservation, and hence deserves greater attention in both policy and practical terms. The webinar includes an invitation to contribute to Communities in Action – CCRN’s global project to ‘put communities on the map’ by crowdsourcing stories of community conservation and sustainable livelihoods.

Power and Politics in Community Conservation

Hillary Web Designer — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 21:49:43 +0000

Issues of power and politics are at the heart of community conservation which in turn influences its ultimate success and failure. Power is central to understanding processes and structures associated with resource and environmental conservation. This may be particularly important in the case of community conservation which is widespread throughout the world. Despite its importance, there remains limited empirical attention to the actual workings of power in environmental settings, and particularly with regards to conditions determining the success and failure of community conservation (i.e. lack of attention to the complex and dynamic economic, social, historical, cultural and political conditions). A limited attention to empirical analysis of power is also apparent in fisheries and coastal management. For example, power is considered an understated and understudied issue in coastal and fisheries management, and there is in reality little discussion on what it means and how it manifests. Drawing from these insights, I will focus on power and politics as they relate to community conservation with specific reference to the strategies and tactics used by various actors either to grab power or ways in which communities in conservation respond to forces causing disempowerment. I plan to provide some initial insights on possible methods and tools used by the community conservation groups to realize their rights, deal with injustices, and gain power to further livelihood and conservation objectives. My reflections in this webinar be largely based on the contents of a paper on which several CCRN members are currently working.

A Youth Perspective on Reconciliation in the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve

CCRN — Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:04:35 +0000

It was a packed house in Parry Sound, Ontario on November 9, 2017; 225 people turned out to see local high school students perform their WE Innovate award-winning children’s book, Building Our Bridge: Our Journey of Reconciliation.

The Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve (GBBR) sponsored the event, featuring strong youth leadership and a sharing of historical and current experiences through cultural dances and drumming.

Reconciliation in Canada refers to recognizing injustices against Indigenous peoples and their impacts, and committing to forging mutually-respectful relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.

What does a youth perspective of the process of reconciliation have to do with a UNESCO biosphere reserve’s mandate to promote conservation and sustainable livelihoods / development through research, education and training?

Globally, UNESCO sites are called to do their work through the lens of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada signed on to UNDRIP in 2016. Nationally, Canadian Biosphere Reserves responded to this call in June 2017 by adding reconciliation to their activities. In doing so, they recognize that successfully fulfilling their mandate requires an acknowledgement of the historical oppression of Indigenous peoples in Canada, and a commitment to respecting Indigenous cultures, knowledges and governance systems.

In the GBBR, the youth’s project is rooted in the idea that land-based education and cultural identity are critical for stewardship success.

“Conservation and stewardship in our community begins with a sense of place and caring for the land”, explained GBBR Executive Director, Becky Pollock. “By sharing Anishinabe (Ojibway) cultural perspectives about our connection to land and water in the only high school in our Biosphere Reserve, we advance a commitment to conservation in our community.”

Book presentation event (left) and student authors Gracie Crafts, Mackenzie Elwes, Sara Burns, Dawson Bloor, and Taylor Judge (right). Photos: Meg Wallace Photography

Indigenous and “mainstream Canadian” students wrote about conserving cultural traditions such as honouring the land and different knowledges, and about reconciling traditional and Western cultures as a step toward healing and the relationship-building that underpins the GBBR’s community conservation and livelihoods initiatives.

The video compilation of the reading and performance is being edited and produced by youth at Parry Sound High School for public viewing soon, with sponsorship from CCRN.

Right: Student author Gracie Crafts reads to 700 elementary school children in Parry Sound.
Left: Project supporters Dr. Becky Pollock (GBBR) and teacher Patti Jenkins (Parry Sound High School)

Photo credits unless otherwise stated: Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve on Facebook

Information in this post was provided by CCRN researcher Sharmalene Mendis-Millard, with thanks to Becky Pollock

Managing the Social Impacts of Conservation

CCRN — Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:57:31 +0000

Information in this post was provided CCRN Affiliate Dr. Nathan Bennett

Concerns about the negative consequences of conservation for local people have prompted attention toward how to address the social impacts of different conservation projects, programs, and policies. Inevitably, when actions are taken to protect or manage the environment this will produce a suite of both positive and negative social impacts for local communities and resource users. Thus, a challenge for conservation and environmental decision-makers and managers is maximizing social benefits while minimizing negative burdens across social, economic, cultural, health, and governance spheres of human well-being. The last decade has seen significant advances in both the methods and the metrics for understanding how conservation and environmental management impact human well-being. There has also been increased uptake in socio-economic monitoring programs in conservation organizations and environmental agencies. Yet, little guidance exists on how to integrate the results of social impact monitoring back into conservation management and decision-making. We recommend that conservation organizations and environmental agencies take steps to better understand and address the social impacts of conservation and environmental management. This can be achieved by integrating key components of the adaptive social impact management (ASIM) cycle outlined below into decision-making and management processes**.

Conservation and environmental management can produce both positive and negative social impacts for local communities and resource users. Thus it is necessary to understand and adaptively manage the social impacts of conservation over time. This will improve social outcomes, engender local support and increase the overall effectiveness of conservation.

Adaptive social impact management
Adaptive social impact management (ASIM) is “the ongoing and cyclical process of monitoring and adaptively managing the social impacts of an initiative through the following four stages: profiling, learning, planning and implementing.”

1. Profiling – The cycle begins with defining the scope and social profile for the social impact management program. This involves identifying spatial boundaries, timelines, and available resources, as well as creating a basic profile of the social system under consideration.
2. Learning – The second stage focuses on developing an understanding of the actual positive and negative social impacts of the project to date as well as how and why these impacts have occurred. It involves data collection, analysis, evaluation, and communication.
3. Planning – During the third stage, managers and practitioners identify alternative courses of action and their respective potential impacts, deliberate and make decisions regarding which actions to take, and revise management policies and plans accordingly.
4. Implementing – The final stage is where decisions are put into action to adapt conservation and management. Lessons learned are shared across sites and to managers and policy-makers to inform decisions, policies and programs.

**For more information, refer to the related publication: Maery Kaplan-Hallam & Nathan J. Bennett (2017). Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12985/full

This work was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada & the Liber Ero Fellowship Program. Author affiliations include: OceanCanada Partnership (University of British Columbia), Center for Ocean Solutions (Stanford) and the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN).

Featured image from https://nathanbennett.ca/

Tsitsikamma, South Africa

CCRN — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:01:24 +0000

View the complete CCRN’s Tsitsikamma Community Story as a PDF

Ella-Kari Muhl

Key messages

The Tsitsikamma area includes local communities whose food security and livelihoods have been impacted negatively by various government actions, notably a no-take marine protected area (MPA).
While MPAs are promoted as a long-term conservation strategy, no-take MPAs threaten the food security and cultural practices of fishers in areas of low economic opportunity and limited alternative livelihoods or transitional support.
A lack of communication between the regulating authority (SANParks) and the fishers has increased conflict in the Tsitsikamma area and endangered community members’ food security and livelihoods.
Participatory monitoring, with formalised consultation with community members, may reduce conflict and strengthen conservation goals.

Community profile

Tsitsikamma, or ‘place of much water’ in Khoisan (the local Indigenous language), is an area interlinking the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces of South Africa. The Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA) spans 80 km and affects the food security, cultural practices and livelihoods of eight communities, including Thornham, Stormsrivier, Nompumelelo and Sanddrif (Figure 1). The Tsitsikamma National Park (TNP) MPA was created in 1964, following the 1962 IUCN World Parks Congress. The TNP MPA is the oldest in South Africa.

Figure 1: The location of the TNP MPA relevant to the local communities

At first, fishing was permitted in certain areas of the Tsitsikamma MPA, with a permit. This was later restricted in 1976 to only one area, before ultimately becoming a “no-take” MPA in 2000. Since this year, local fishers have been barred from harvesting marine resources despite historically having had access to the ocean and coastal resources. The communities have been reliant on mixed livelihoods, including fishing, for generations. There are currently 5,434 people residing in the four communities who, due to low economic opportunity, are reliant on fishing for food security and consider it part of their cultural practice.

Conservation and livelihood challenges

Historically, the South African government enforced racially exclusionary rules for accessing the coast and its resources, leading to the marginalisation of rural coastal communities (especially in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal), which were dependent on coastal resources for their food security and livelihoods^(2,11). In the wake of apartheid, South Africa’s National Parks have come under increased pressure to reconcile the wealth of natural resources to the social and economic needs of the previously oppressed black rural communities⁽¹⁾.

The impacts of “no-take” MPA

With the abolition of apartheid and introduction of democracy, it was hoped that the right of small-scale and subsistence fishers would be restored in accordance with their culture and tradition^(10).When the legislative change to a “no take” MPA took place in 2000 under the Marine Living Resource Act 18 of 1998, it was shown to affect not only food security for the fishers and their families but also their cultural identity and heritage ⁽⁷⁾. The Thornham, Stormsrivier, Nompumelelo and Sanddrif communities have been reliant on fishing as a form of food security. With the loss of access to fish, there has been a reported decline in health and increase in crime⁽⁴⁾.

Fishers stated that, in addition, their well-being has been affected by the closure of the MPA, as fishing is part of their identity⁽¹⁾. The current top-down governmental conservation programme, which introduced a no-take MPA as a form of conservation to promote sustainability and biodiversity, was implemented without consultation with the community, and subsequently has elevated conflict between community members and the regulating authority.

Food security, customary rights and livelihood impacts

With no alternative livelihood provided, local village economies remain limited with few economic opportunities available (Figure 2). Local household economies are poor and under severe stress.

In 2016, for example, only 52.6% of households met the financial requirements for food security, which increases fisher’s dependence on marine resources as a supplementary food source. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) housing built by the South African government in 2001 to create Nompumelelo village added 480 households to the area, placing additional pressure on resources⁽⁶⁾. The timing of the completion of RDP housing coincided with the delineation of a no-take MPA, thus increased competition for work, and placed strain on local amenities, with already limited public services and health care.

The change in coastal access and legislation has had a negative effect on the community with a loss of livelihoods, fishing and recreational activity. The community describe themselves as being “born on the rocks (coast)”, claiming original ancestry from the indigenous Khoi-san people, indicating a consideration of the coast as a part of their culture and traditions^(1,6).

Many residents in Tsitsikamma have also historically relied on coastal forests for a range of amenities, such as medicinal plants, honey and woods for fuels and building materials, which they are also denied access to.

Figure 2: A former fisher, no longer allowed to access the coast, writes poetry about the sea now.

The lack of recognition as stakeholders and exclusion from the coastline has illustrated that unless social and ecological factors are considered with the design of the MPA, illegal fishing and conflict will continue between SANParks (South African National Parks) and the local communities.

Community initiatives

In 1994, the community created the Tsitsikamma Angling Forum (TAF) to represent local fishers who wanted access to the coast. The TAF have formally petitioned against the TNP in 1976, 1995, 2006, and 2015. They have also worked with a task team comprised of the Kou Kamma municipality and SANParks to reopen the TNP in 2006, 2014 and 2015. The TAF actively protested SANParks in 2007, when 70 members fished illegally in the Tsitsikamma MPA.

Over time, the community has become increasingly mobilized and in 2015, following workshops between the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Oceans and Coasts Branch, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), SANParks, the local municipality (Kou Kamma) and representatives from TAF, a decision was made to open specific areas within the MPA for fishing with restrictions. The plan to reopen certain areas was approved in December 2015 through promulgation of a government gazette but was then blocked by the Friends of the Tsitsikamma, an association that obtained a court interdict against SANParks, DEA and TAF in January 2016⁽⁹⁾.

Figure 3: Map depicting the three coastal control zones within the Tsitsikamma MPA

Legal recognition of historically disadvantaged residents

Following the closure in January 2016, the TNP MPA was rezoned later in December 2016 in the new government gazette 40511⁽⁸⁾ to allow three controlled fishing areas to be opened (Figure 3). However, the MPA re-opening process has been questioned as consultation was not carried out with local community members and was poorly conceptualized with little practical changes for community member’s food security or livelihoods.

At present, community members are required to purchase a permit. However, older fishers and minors are either prohibited or unable to fish under the new gazette ruling, halting the multi-generational transfer of knowledge. This prevents the oral traditions and teachings of the older generation from passing down to the present. The subsequent absence of SANParks at the controlled zones prevents fishers from communicating effectively with rangers and leads to miscommunication and further resentment towards SANParks.

The challenges and lack of capacity within SANParks reveal the vulnerability of the Tsitsikamma fishing communities and the need to incorporate local ecological knowledge (LEK) and community members into partnerships with researchers and authorities to better manage MPAs.

Practical outcomes

The Tsitsikamma community have issues of food security and a lack of economic opportunities or alternative livelihoods (Figure 4). The creation of the no-take MPA has disrupted a reliance on fish as a contribution to food and cultural practices^(1,5).

The community members have identified five solutions that would be the most beneficial towards restoring trust between community fishers and SANParks (Figure 5).

(1) Collaboration

Community members and government officials need to work together through a duty of care and environmental stewardship for the Tsitsikamma MPA, along with an understanding that fishers would protect the resource, as long as their cultural rights were preserved and they are allowed access to harvest medicinal plants, fish and other forest items sustainably.

(2) Transgenerational access to the Tsitsikamma MPA

Emphasis is placed on elders and minors being able to access the coast for fishing and cultural practices. The older generation hold the knowledge and cultural practices from their ancestors – they are instrumental in teaching the youth the importance of using natural resources sustainably and teaching them about the species of fish, the types of medicinal plants and how to harvest them in an environmentally friendly manner.

Figure 4: The Stormsrivier mouth which is located centrally in the park and would be accessible to fishers, however is reserved for tourists.

(3) Education

The fishers expressed interest in environmental education workshops for both adults and children, as almost a whole generation has not had access to the sea resulting in loss of knowledge. Fishers listed workshops as being beneficial so that they could better understand why certain species were not allowed to be caught. This would also help to clarify rules as, at present, the new government gazette is unclear and some fishers are unsure of why certain rules are in place.

(4) Communication

To empower fishers and effectively promote collaboration, communication is necessary between relevant government departments, SANParks, and working groups made up of interested parties, scientists and elected community members. Increasing the capacity of and empowering local fishers to participate in decision-making processes leads to practical, real solutions that strengthen ownership and promote care of the resource.

(5) Acknowledgement of customary rights and access rights

In order to improve management, increased understanding of government officials of the fishers’ customary rights and importance of access will foster respect and promote conservation, as well as help reduce tensions and conflict between the two parties.

Future concerns

Dialogue between the community and the regulating authorities is improving; however, for there to be a successful conservation impact, policy makers need to widely consult on proposed changes before implementing them. Top-down processes of government control only serve to further marginalise the community and promote resentment. A working partnership is necessary to establish trust and understanding with an emphasis on local ecological knowledge combined with scientific expertise for better policy and practice.

Figure 5: The Thornham Focus Group members with their list of practical outcomes

References

Faasen, H. (2006). ‘Synergies between biodiversity conservation and sustainable rural development of adjacent communities: a case study of the Tsitsikamma National Park’. Master’s thesis (Conservation Ecology and Entomology). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Available at: https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/2913
Glavovic, B.C., Boonzaier, S. (2007). Confronting coastal poverty: Building sustainable coastal livelihoods in South Africa. Ocean & Coastal Management 50(1–2), pp.1–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2006.07.001
Maharajh, R. J. (2003). ‘Values and concerns in decision- making about a waste reduction incinerator at Stormsriver, Tsitsikamma: A case study in applied ethics’. Master’s thesis (Philosophy). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Muhl, E.-K. (2016). ‘Food security and livelihood threats: an investigation into the lives of the fishers bordering the Tsitsikamma National Park’. Honours thesis (unpublished). University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Muhl, E.K. (2019). ‘An analysis of the Perceptions Surrounding the re-Zoning of the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area’. Master’s thesis (Environmental and Geographical Science). Faculty of Science, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/31347
Muhl, E.-K., Esteves Dias, A.C. and Armitage, D. (2020). ‘Experiences With Governance in Three Marine Conservation Zoning Initiatives: Parameters for Assessment and Pathways Forward’. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 629. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00629
Muhl, E.K. and Sowman, M., 2020. Rights, Resources, Rezoning and the Challenges of Governance in South Africa’s Oldest Marine Protected Area. Conservation and Society 18(4): 366. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4103/ cs.cs_19_154
Republic of South Africa (2016). ‘Protected Areas Act, 2003, Act No. 57. Regulations for the Management of the Tsitsikamma National Park Marine Protected Area’. Government Gazette, Vol. 618, No. 40511, Regulation No. 10676, 19 December 2016. Pretoria. South Africa: Government Printing Works. Available at: https://www. environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/ protectedareasact57of2003%29_regulations_ sitsikammanationalpark_gg40511_0.pdf
Republic of South Africa Department of Environment, Forestry & Fisheries (RSA DEFF) (2016). ‘Settlement reached in court on the pilot recreational angling project in the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area’. RSA DEFF [website]. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/courtsettlement_tsitsikammamarineprotectedarea; https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/ courtjudment_ontsitsikammamarineprotectedarea2016.pdf
Sowman, M., Scott, D., Green, L.J.F., Hara, M.M., Hauck, M., Kirsten, K., Paterson, B., Raemaekers, S., Jones, K., Sunde, J. and Turpie, J.K. (2013). ‘Shallow waters: social science research in South Africa’s marine environment’. African Journal of Marine Science 35(3): 385–402. Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2013.836134
Sunde, J. (2014). Customary governance and expressions of living customary law at Dwesa-Cwebe: contributions to small- scale fisheries governance in South Africa. Doctoral thesis (Environmental and Geographical Science). Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/ handle/11427/13275

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the involvement of the community members, as well as the support of her supervisors, Philile Mbatha and Professor Merle Sowman.

Check out this CCRN funded video produced by CCRN student Ella-Kari Muhl.

Listen to the accounts of local community members as they describe and express the struggles and challenges related to the implementation of the marine protected area, and how the current challenges are endangering the future of the community. The video highlights the values and needs of the local residents, and, through those values, demonstrates indicators and practices that would lead to success

Rights-based approaches for community co-managed coastal resources by Juan Carlos Seijo & Minerva Arce-Ibarra

Hillary Web Designer — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:43:14 +0000

This webinar has two aims; firstly, it gives account of historical traits of the origin as well as on current debates on Rights Based Approaches (RBA) to the management of coastal resources; secondly, it addresses the context of RBA of three Mexican Caribbean case studies – Punta Allen, Mahahual and Xcalak in which RBA to coastal resources are currently in place. The analysis is based on FAO’s rights-based use and management approach (Orensanz and Seijo 2013). Our results show that the case studies include a diversity of use and management rights including: (1) rights of use and community co-management to particular fishing areas; (2) rights of access to particular snorkeling and SCUBA areas for tourism; and (3) rights to use coastal resources (e.g., discarded shells) to make arts and crafts. The recorded RBAs have been evolving, from open access to community co-managed access rights during the last four decades. The three case studies analyzed show different institutional arrangements responding either to the presence or absence of natural protected areas in place, local contexts, status of coastal marine resources, and governance capacities in place.

Intergenerational Knowledge Sharing of Conservation Values in Indigenous Communities by Dawn Foxcroft & Michelle Colyn

Hillary Web Designer — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:41:53 +0000

In this webinar, Dawn Foxcroft and Michelle Colyn discuss the power of intergenerational knowledge transmission between youth and elders and its connection to stewardship in Indigenous communities. As members of the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation, along Canada’s West Coast, and working for Uu-a-thluk, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council Fisheries, they bring a community perspective to this topic. They explore how assimilation tactics have caused a disconnection between elders and youth, and youth and the environment; why these relationships between the generations are fundamental to the health of aquatic resources; and they highlight approaches they have used to foster these intergenerational connections grounded in Nuu-chah-nulth principles.