The traditional foods that our ancestors enjoyed remain a significant aspect of social and cultural events, yet often it’s only our Elders who are experts in how to harvest, prepare, and preserve these foods. Having the knowledge and skills to access good, healthy foods for ourselves and our families is an inherent right that should be encouraged at the community level.

This was part of the motivation behind three harvesting workshops organized and coordinated by Uu-a-thluk this past summer in the three regions (i.e., Southern Region: China Creek and Broken Group Islands, Central Region: Toquaht Bay, and Northern Region: Nootka Sound and Yuquot). Thanks to a Special Projects grant from the Nuu-chah-nulth Employment and Training Program (NETP), Uu-a-thluk was able to launch this pilot project to better equip Nuu-chah-nulth for aquatic-related employment opportunities. 

“Our hope is that we will make these workshops a yearly event and collaborate with Nations who would like to train members on seafood harvesting, preparation, and preservation,” said Michelle Colyn, Uu-a-thluk Capacity Building Coordinator. “This project will allow us to continue to assert our rights for present and future generations to develop fisheries-related opportunities in concert with Nuu-chah-nulth values and rights.”

Community members in the harvesting workshops learned a range of skills and knowledge such as modern ways of harvesting salmon, crab, prawn, groundfish, and kelp; how knowledge of harvesting ocean resources ties into careers in the fisheries and eco-tourism industries; handling, cleaning, filleting salmon, how to prepare kuutchis salmon (Nuu-chah-nulth salmon barbeque over fire), and preservation methods such as canning.

Figure 1: Northern Region Biologist Roger Dunlop leading a seaweed identification activity (harvesting workshop), Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Science Camp

Participants in the Northern Region workshop canned bull kelp and made bull kelp salsa, while in the Central Region community members learned about the importance of the potlatch for Nuu-chah-nulth governance and for important events. This past summer while the workshop was taking place Toquaht community members were harvesting for a special memorial honouring Bert Mack (Deets–kee-sup), who served as Tyee Ha’wilth (Hereditary Chief) of Toquaht First Nation until 2009. Those taking part in this workshop also learned about how Nuu-chah-nulth would move through the seasons harvesting food during the 13 moons of the Nuu-chah-nulth calendar. Anii-tsa-chist (Larry Johnson), Toquaht fisher and President of the Nuu-chah-nulth Seafood Development Corporation spoke about the importance of being familiar with the “Seasonal Round” or Nuu-chah-nulth calendar.  

“To truly get back to traditional foods it’s important to know why and when different foods are harvested. We’ve been removed from the fishing industry and the coastal way of life,” he said, adding that the residential schools and the shutting out of Nuu-chah-nulth from the commercial fishing industry have significantly contributed to this disconnection. 

Defined by the principles of hišukiš c̓awaak meaning “everything is connected,” as Nuu-chah-nulth we understand our sacred duty to foster healthy relationships with the land, waters, plants, and animals that give us our food. With this comes the necessity to respond to our own requirements for safe, healthy cultural foods and the ability to make decisions over how much and what food we hunt, fish, gather, grow and eat to feed our communities. Field-based training opportunities like the harvesting workshops connect food sovereignty and food security with employment on the water, which is crucial to ensuring the long-term success of fisheries and fisheries related businesses. Engaging the next generation in this understanding often begins with something as simple as a first fishing lesson.

Anii-tsa-chist recalled the thrill of catching salmon on a rod for the first time and how he noticed this in the children who he taught to fish at the harvesting workshop in Toquaht Bay. “Adrenalin takes over and that excitement takes me right back to being a little boy and fishing stickleback in the rivers.” Although he added that this should be but one lesson of many. “Being a fisher isn’t something you learn from one course once a year. It’s a lifetime of things you pick up along the way.” 

All information in this post provided by CCRN Researcher Dawn Foxcroft

The session was chaired by CCRN PhD candidate Alison Macnaughton and consisted of five presentations:

Prateep Nayak:
Fisher communities in transition: Understanding meanings and motivations for conservation from a livelihood perspective in Chilika Lagoon, India

Sébastien Boillat:
Linking telecoupled conservation initiatives with environmental justice: A meta-analysis of protected areas in the global South

Alison Macnaughton, Fernando Carvajal-Vallejos, Anthony Charles:
The role of fishing as part of sustainable indigenous livelihoods in the Bolivian Amazon

Rahul Chaturvedi, Pratiti Priyadarshini:
Securing tenurial rights to improve forest conditions and livelihoods in the rainfed regions of India

Verina Ingram, Otto Hospes:
A paradigm shift in sustainability governance? The emergence of sustainable landscape initiatives

View the complete CCRN’s Bolivia’s Northern Amazon Community Story as a PDF

Alison Macnaughton

Key Messages

• Introduced fish species in the Bolivian Amazon could provide Indigenous communities with livelihood opportunities, but may also be a threat to their critically-important subsistence fisheries through predation and territorial exclusion.

• Local fishery organizations can be strengthed through ongoing dialogue, leadership training, and technical assistance.

• Engaging with local, regional and national level actors and promoting open spaces of dialogue (workshops, round table groups) can help identify common interests, resolve conflicts and support discussion on future planning.

Community Profile

Figure 1: Map of Bolivia showing the Pando and Beni departments(10)

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Figure 2: Traditional houses in Baketi community, TCO Cavineño, 2015), and low returns to producers.

Community Initiatives

Since 2011, indigenous communities have worked with researchers from the Asociación Faunagua, World Fisheries Trust, and the University of Victoria (Canada), to better understand the fisheries situation, and identify pathways to improve livelihood and food security in the region.

Figure 3: Explaining local fishing areas, catch and effort, community workshop, TCO Chácobo, 2015

Much of this work has focused on the paiche; providing key information on abundance and impacts, as well as potential for development. So far, these efforts have provided important information on:

• Nutritional status and food security of rural and urban populations and key determinants, including the contributions of fish⁽¹⁾;
• Fisheries and other livelihood activities, and local perspectives about paiche; and
• Fishery value chains, and mechanisms to improve transparency and promote greater economic equity between fishers, middlemen and markets^(7,5)

Figure 4: Mapping the spread of the introduced paiche fish, community workshop, TCO Chácobo 2015

There have also been a range of practical initiatives including:

• Pilot initiatives for value-added fish production, for example the establishment of a cooperative in one of the indigenous communities, where paiche fillets and skins (for leather production) are produced and sold at improved prices;
• Strengthening local fisheries organizations through ongoing dialogue, leadership training, and providing technical assistance, e.g. consolidation of the regional fishers association; and
• Engaging with local, regional and national level actors and promoting open spaces of dialogue (workshops, round table groups) to identify common interests, resolve conflicts and discuss future planning^(8).

Practical Outcomes

Figure 5: Preparing roasted tucunaré (peacock bass), a traditional dish, TCO Cavineño, 2015

• Capacity-building for communities and local organisations to identify and articulate local needs and priorities for development and conservation.
• Development and implementation of resource management plans and other governance tools at a local level.
• More effective engagement in regional planning.
• Support for greater transparency, communication and cooperation between agencies responsible for regulating fishing and fish markets.
• Improving returns to fishers, for example through value-added opportunities or improved pricing structure.

Figure 6: Returning with the day’s catch, TCO Cavineño, 2015

References

Acknowledgements

View the CCRN’s Eastern Shore Community Story as a PDF

Tiffanie Rainville, Sadie Beaton, Jennifer Graham, Maggy Burns
Ecology Action Centre; Sadie.beaton@gmail.com

Key Messages

• A close relationship with the land is a key aspect of   local identities along the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia.
• Local community groups have been key actors in the Eastern Shore’s forestry and wilderness conversation
• These same actors are also looking to innovative combinations of new and old technologies for new ways to protect the Eastern Shore identity, including eco-tourism and adventure tourism.

Community Introduction

Within the eastern Canadian province of Nova Scotia, the Eastern Shore is a largely rural region of the mainland, northeast of Halifax along the Atlantic Ocean coast (Figure 1 – Map). Human habitation of the region goes back several thousand years. Mi’kmaq peoples traditionally thrived throughout Mi’kma’ki, a territory encompassing Canada’s Maritime Provinces and Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec. The Mi’kmaq traditionally hunted, fished, and camped in the region. Before European contact, Mi’kmaq populations were distributed throughout the Eastern Shore region, with concentrations nearby present day Musquodoboit, Ship Harbour and Sheet Harbour. Although Mi’kmaq retained their traditional land use patterns in these early years of contact, significant changes occurred with the arrival of English and German Protestants, who were granted tracts of land by their colonizing nations. As a result, Mi’kmaq populations were largely displaced,

Figure 1: Eastern Shore, NS. Credit: BBCanada.com

By the early 1900s, a number of fish plants, shipyards, lumber mills and gold mines helped usher this sparsely settled region into the industrial revolution. Industrialization intensified a boom-and-bust economy, temporarily increasing the population base – until many of these operations closed down in the 1990s with the impactful historical collapse of the groundfish fisheries3.

As the local forestry industry began to be increasingly managed for pulp, due to a global appetite for paper made from wood pulp, forest management practices shifted towards clearcutting. In 1977, the provincial government opted for a forestry policy aiming to double harvesting volume and, by the 1980s, clearcutting was the overwhelming norm. Increasingly mechanized harvesting technologies further accelerated the degradation of the Eastern Shore forest. These shifts in technology, markets, and policy not only degraded the forests, but also led to loss of community access to the land, and phased out most forest management roles from the community. However, recent international drivers, stemming from the United Nations’ Brundtland Report (1987) and Rio Declaration (1992) drove federal and provincial wilderness protection commitments starting in the 1990s. The Eastern Shore is home to the Acadian forest (Figure 2), a unique woodland that extends across eastern Canadian and the northeastern United States. This resilient forest ecosystem, listed as endangered by the World Wildlife Fund, is comprised of a mixture of uneven-aged hardwood and softwood trees.

Figure 2: Acadian Forest. Credit: Jamie Simpson

Eastern Shore forests have value to both local residents and the wider population as plant and animal habitat, carbon storage, storm protection, and soil preservation, along with recreational opportunities (hunting and fishing, canoeing, and camping) and other trail system activities. Access to this wilderness is valuable for economic, recreational, aesthetic and spiritual reasons. Some areas, notably the archipelago of small islands that dot the coastline, have both wilderness protection and ecotourism potential. Nova Scotia forests and their services in climate regulation, waste treatment, recreation and cultural benefits, among others, have been estimated to contribute up to $1.68 billion (1997$) annually1 and help reduce climate change damage, through storing 107 million tonnes of carbon2.

The largely rural population of 15,720 (2011) continue to pursue mixed livelihoods, with an economy based primarily on fishing, forestry, but also including some hunting (and guiding), and salmon angling. A close relationship with the land is a key aspect of local identities along the Eastern Shore and land access is critical to this deep connection, and highly valued.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

In Nova Scotia, the province’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages most of the publicly owned forest and wilderness resources. DNR has broad responsibilities related to the development, management, conservation and protection of forests, minerals, parks and wildlife resources. Despite this, environmental and community groups believe that DNR’s relationships with forest extraction companies has dominated DNR’s motivations, often leading to management choices that diminish Nova Scotia’s natural wealth.

Much of the Acadian forest along the Eastern Shore has been logged extensively, and even-aged forest monoculture stands (same aged trees with little to no mixture of younger and older trees) have diminished its resiliency. This has impacted the Eastern Shore, as did the stunning collapse of groundfish stocks in the early 1990s, which not only resulted in significant ecological loss, but also decreased economic resiliency, driving rural depopulation. Many have speculated that there was an accompanying collapse in the sense of rural coastal identity.

The aging population of the Eastern Shore is an equally important point. In recent decades, the number of school-aged children has reduced dramatically, as many of the 30 and 40 year olds have left the region for work elsewhere. This has important implications for the Eastern Shore’s economy, which hasn’t been robust in decades.

Livelihood pressures and waves of outmigration have fragmented the population structure and identity of the Eastern Shore. Populations closer to the city are growing, shifting community identity, including the meaning of “rural”. Once defined by direct natural resource use, these towns are becoming “bedroom” communities of Halifax. A reverse influx of “new” community members, who have settled in the region over the past few decades, have also helped spur collective action around protecting watersheds, wildlife habitat and preserving Acadian forests. However, overlapping priorities have conflicted with the stewardship and access issues of the more long-time residents.

Community Initiative

The socio-ecological system of the Eastern Shore is extremely rich, encompassing a variety of relevant stories and lessons. The research in this region focuses on community conservation actions related to forestry and wilderness conservation between 1975 and 2015. The story illustrates how the efforts of key local champions helped drive an evolution of community identity over time, allowing for increased collective action related to protection both of wilderness and local livelihoods.

Various community groups have been key local actors in the Eastern Shore forestry and wilderness conversation. These groups include: The Association for the Preservation of the Eastern Shore (APES); The Eastern Shore Forest Watch Association (ESFWA); Otter Ponds Demonstration Forest; The Deanery; The Public Lands Coalition (PLC); and The Ecology Action Centre (EAC). Local actors or ‘local champions’ within the above groups were crucial drivers of change in this story, facilitating collaborations amongst diverse stakeholders to achieve transformative outcomes. Also, individuals brought together groups, which then amplified their organization, enabling them to take up greater roles as activists promoting (and accomplishing) conservation outcomes.

Background: 1970s-2000s
In 1975, Parks Canada aimed to designate a large area of the Eastern Shore as a National Park. Local communities expressed immediate concern about protecting their access to the land, preserving their way of life, and the threat of expropriation of their land. The APES formed, mobilizing collective action around the expropriation threat. After significant local pushback, the Federal government backed off. Subsequently, the provincial government has negotiated and established provincial parks and sanctuaries, especially along the coast. The National Park proposal marked the beginning of decades of changes shaped by divergent stakeholder interests around local resources, especially forests.

After the Nova Scotia government selected 31 Wilderness Areas for protection in 1990, Jim Campbell’s Barren, in Nova Scotia’s Cape Breton area, was dropped from the list of candidates in 1996. This key event led to public opposition (led by the Public Lands Coalition) and demand for the re-inclusion of Jim Campbell’s Barren. By 1998, the dropped candidate area was returned to the list, and momentum from this “win” led to a push for larger pieces of protected land at the provincial level. This fostered a sense of agency and empowerment on the Eastern Shore, even though not all residents agreed with the outcomes.

By the year 2000, a collective opinion emerged among local stakeholders across Nova Scotia, that the “industrial forestry model was not compatible with local use”. This is arguably the moment when local groups crossed a threshold into a more concerted “identity” and capacity to influence change as a coherent group.

During a subsequent Forest Forum event, participants called for a “change in vision”. This change in vision evolved into what became known as the Colin Stewart Forest Forum (CSFF), which served as a mechanism for negotiation between forestry companies and the Public Lands Coalition, without active involvement from the DNR. The CSFF quickly evolved and agreed to produce a report delineating sites for protection, with recommendations for meeting Nova Scotia’s declared goal of landmass protection, as outlined in the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (2007). Submitted in 2009, the report was deemed an exceptional example of environmentalists and forestry companies coming together to achieve a common goal4.

2008 – Designation of Ship Harbour Long Lake
Ship Harbour Long Lake Wilderness Area (SHLLWA) is a 15,000-hectare wilderness between the communities of Ship Harbour and Musquodoboit harbor. Rich in ecological diversity, it encompasses more than 50 lakes, numerous streams, old forest, marshes, and waterways. In 2009, after two years of consultation and discussion, SHLLWA was officially designated under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act. This designation was one of the first positive outcomes of the collective pushes, including both regional environmental groups like EAC and local stewardship groups like the ESFWA5,6.

2009 – Caribou Mines Clear-cut
Another important threshold occurred in 2009 when a particularly visible roadside clear-cut emerged near Upper Musquodoboit (Figure 3). Local concern spread, including the formation of a ‘Save Caribou Mines’ group, and escalated when the scene was photographed and distributed by EAC and ESFW, resulting in significant public outcry around the province. The outcome was the design of a sustainable economic, social, and environmental policy. While the results of this policy remain to be seen, wide participation in the consultation process may have helped catalyze diverse groups to engage in collective action to protect a shared “sense of place”.

Figure 3: Caribou Mines Clearcut. Credit: Jamie Simpson

2009 – Otter Ponds Demonstration Forest
As part of the negotiations for SHLLWA (see above), a forest company relinquished their cutting rights on part of the public land involved in exchange for other areas nearby5. Several Mooseland community members were concerned over the company’s encroaching entitlements, fearing more clearcuts in the forests their families had used over many generations. After another highly visible clearcut appeared near the community, residents engaged in collective action.

A threshold moment occurred during a forest hike just outside Mooseland. Led by a local champion, members of various community groups began to discuss an innovative idea to help protect community and forest values in the area. These discussions led to the creation of a multi-stakeholder demonstration forest for uneven aged forestry.

By 2009, the idea had matured into a conceivable project, and was brought directly to the DNR Minister. The project aimed to create an economically viable, sustainable, and scalable initiative including community involvement, rural economic development, and uneven-aged forest management. Representatives of the four non-governmental organizations were given the opportunity to work with the lease of the public land to develop the newly formed Otter Ponds Demonstration Forest. After nearly a year of dialogue between these groups, agreements were signed on June 22, 2010.

2015 – “100 Wild Islands Legacy Campaign”
After research revealed unrecognized and globally significant never-cut boreal rainforest, Nova Scotia Nature Trust (NSNT), a land conservation organization, launched a “100 Wild Islands Legacy Campaign.” This work, driven by an environmental nongovernmental organization, happened alongside the provincial Protected Areas process, which ultimately resulted in a joint protection announcement with the province in June 2015. This included protection for an additional 1844 new hectares of land alongside the Eastern Shore Islands Wildlife Area.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) is helping the Eastern Shore expand its tourism potential related to these islands, as part of a broader program called the Strategic Tourism Expansion Program (STEP). The work of several local groups helped catalyze and steer this process. The funding focuses on economic development through tourism. The aim is not only to protect a “sense of place,” but also to derive economic benefit from the opportunities presented by the protection efforts of the NSNT and recent additions to provincial Protected Areas and Parks.

Practical Outcomes

Over the past forty years, much has changed along the Eastern Shore. Back in 1975, local communities were just beginning to organize against external threats to their sense of place, including wilderness protection proposals and industrial forestry. As economic and demographic changes shaped evolving livelihoods and community identity over the years, key threshold events have also helped community groups, with diverse motivations, come together to create and support various conservation actions, from a demonstration forest to protected areas to stewardship skill building projects. However, there is still a deep need to support the resilience of the Eastern Shore and its members especially through rural economic development which respects identity, ‘sense of place’, and stewardship priorities.

With a large plot of wilderness protection secured and a community demonstration forest in works, environmental groups often laud the Eastern Shore as part of a provincial conservation success story. Certainly, protection leads to measureable conservation impacts that can benefit communities, and a community demonstration forest woodlot promises to promote local ecological stewardship practices as well as aiming to achieve economic sustainability. These same actors are also looking to innovative combinations of new and old technologies for new ways to protect the Eastern Shore identity including eco-tourism and adventure tourism.

References

All information was adapted from the Ecology Action Centre’s Eastern Shore Forests: Livelihoods, “Sense of Place” and Motivation for Conservation document.

1. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, & M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253 – 260.

2. Wilson, S., Colman, R., O’Brien, M., and L. Pannozzo. 2001. Ecological, economic and social valuation of forest resources related to resource management, harvest practices, and multiple resource usage. Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI Atlantic).

3. Charles, A.T. 1997. Fisheries Management in Atlantic Canada. Ocean and Coastal Management, 35(2-3):101-119.

4. Colin Stewart Forest Forum Steering Committee. 2009. Final Report. http://northernpulp.ca/img/pdf/CSFFreport.pdf.

5. Prest, W. 2010. Atlantic Forestry Review. Making Progress: The Otter Ponds Demonstration Forest is now a reality. Guest Editorial. 3 pp.

6. Delong, J. October 11, 2009. The voices in the wilderness. The Nova Scotian.

View the complete CCRN’s Clayoquot Sound Community Story as a PDF

Tawney Lem,  West Coast Aquatic; tawney@westcoastaquatic.ca

Key Messages

• In order to sustain livelihoods and conserve biodiversity, decision-making must be integrated; that is, ecosystem based, with the participation of all affected interests, and inclusive of indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge.

• Co-management Roundtables have been a successful tool in bringing parties together to discuss their salmon management concerns. An online marine ecosystem reference guide is being developed for Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds to support integrated decision-making.

• The desire to benefit from economic opportunity can be the common ground for successful indigenous and non-indigenous community collaboration and partnership.

Community Introduction

West Coast Aquatic’s geographic scope reflects the ‘Ha-houlthee’ (territorial wealth) of fifteen Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations. Stretching approximately 300 kilometers along the West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI), from Brooks Peninsula northwest of Kyuquot Sound to southeast of Sheringham Point including Port Renfrew, this area is a unique and rich marine ecosystem that provides food, energy, economic opportunity, water, culture, tourism, recreation, biotechnology, transportation routes, and knowledge to residents, Canadians, and the international community.

Figure 1: Map of Clayoquot Sound (Photo Credit: West Coast Aquatic “Coastal Strategy”, 2012)

The WCVI offers countless opportunities for every type of activity, including: fishing in Port Alberni (named by the World Fishing Network as the “Ultimate Fishing Town” in 2010); outdoor activities such as kayaking in the pristine Broken Group island and hiking Della Falls, the tallest waterfalls in Canada at 1443 feet; and viewing a diverse amount of wildlife. Fishing areas on the WCVI (Clayoquot, Barkley and Nootka) account for three of the top four areas in the Pacific with the highest landed value per hectare(1). There are a number of finfish, shellfish, and marine plant aquaculture operations in the area, producing over 20% of BC’s total aquaculture volume.

The Clayoquot Sound, a sub-region of WCVI, is home to the Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht and Hesquiaht First Nations. Extending from Estevan Point on Hesquiaht Peninsula in the north to Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in the south, it encompasses lush rainforests, magnificent beaches, and several large islands including Flores, Vargas and Meares. Clayoquot Sound is the largest area of ancient temperate rainforest left on Vancouver Island. Marine species and wildlife thrive in this region of ancient forests, where trees can grow to over 15 feet in diameter and as old as 1,500 years. Clayoquot Sound is considered to be one of the most spectacular wilderness areas on the continent and has been declared a United Nations Biosphere Reserve.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Despite the region having tremendous natural assets and opportunities, the area also faces significant challenges. In the mid-1990s, leaders from the West Coast of Vancouver Island came together to discuss key issues: declining fish stocks and increased species at risk; pollution; lack of coastal community access to adjacent resources; unresolved First Nations title, rights, and reconciliation; increased debt and declining funding; lack of governance credibility; social problems; climate change; marine hazards; invasive species; conflicting coastal uses; and food security. The leaders came to the conclusion that there was not one single cause, and not one single cure. Everything is connected. To affect change, a collective effort was required and the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board (now known as ‘West Coast Aquatic’) was born.

Since the mid-1990s, the area has seen some notable advancements: conflicts have decreased; collaboration has increased; rights and title have gained some definition through a treaty and ongoing court cases; risk assessments guide stewardship work; and multi-sector governance models continue to evolve. However, communities continue their efforts to: increase local benefit from resource use; build struggling fishery stocks; preserve the local culture of artisanal and sustenance fishing; and diversify the economy, amongst other issues.

Meanings & Motivations
Viewing the actions of its partners, West Coast Aquatic understands resource conservation in the region to mean sustainable use with respect (iisaak) and active stewardship. Conservation is different from preservation, a term that carries a stigma in the region as being related to those who “say no to everything”. In the past, the region has seen significant conflict between sectors. However, some long-time adversaries are now working together, and long held perspectives are changing as opportunities increase for open dialogue around critical questions. Protocols between First Nations and the aquaculture industry in Clayoquot Sound is a good example.

Community based resource users are conservation motivated by the increasing volume of resource use benefits that are leaving the communities (e.g. a large number of fishing licenses are held by a few corporations), but the environmental impacts are largely felt by those inside the communities. There is an interest in having the inclusion of local knowledge improve decision-making and increasing local benefits.

These users are also interested in giving back to/supporting the resource that is at the heart of their businesses/sport, as they don’t want to lose economic and/or recreational opportunity. Many community based resource users are also multi-generational. They want to continue what their families have done for years, and hope to pass on the practice to their children.

The motivations of First Nations include: regaining their traditional roles of stewardship and management; ensuring the environment can support the full exercise of aboriginal rights and economic aspirations; having management reflect traditional values of hishuk ish tsawalk (everything is one, taking care of the resources is taking care of ourselves and vice versa); and wanting local/traditional knowledge to improve decision making.

Local governments are motivated by the desire to change the perception of what their towns’ identities represent (not just resource economies). Several governments in the regional district are looking to reinvent their brand, and healthy ecosystems are needed to support their new image (e.g. tourism).

Community Initiative

Recognizing the size and interconnected nature of these issues, local groups created West Coast Aquatic as a forum to pool resources and work towards collective solutions. The formation of West Coast Aquatic was right around the same time that Canada passed the Oceans Act (1997), one of the first pieces of national legislation to recognize emerging challenges in oceans and coastal health and also aimed at mandating collective action.

In this context, West Coast Aquatic set out to produce an integrated strategy to improve the health and wealth of the west coast of Vancouver Island. Through interviews with over 700 organizations and individuals, the Coastal Strategy was developed. Central to the strategy is bringing together knowledge from different sources about the West Coast of Vancouver Island area to create a common understanding of what is happening, why, and what needs to be done.

Governance Related to Challenges Being Addressed
West Coast Aquatic provides several consensus-based forums for involving First Nations and other local communities in decision-making. These include a Governance Board that makes policy recommendations to government, and multi-sector roundtables for salmon management. The Governance Board includes representatives from all levels of government, Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations, and all sectors with an interest in aquatic resource management (e.g. commercial fishing, aboriginal fishing, recreational & sport fishing, aquaculture, environment, processing, labour, tourism & recreation, marine transportation and forestry) (see Figure 2). The Salmon Roundtables include representatives from the Federal Government, Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations, all salmon fishing sectors, and stewardship organizations.

Figure 2: Collaborative, consensus-based governance (Photo Credit: Tawney Lem)

Both the Governance Board and Roundtables incorporate diverse tools and methods (including the Nuu-chah-nulth management principles of hishuk ish tsawalk and iisaak, values based discussion, and consensus) for truly representative and collaborative decision-making that produces lasting results. Through inclusive representation, the Governance Board and Roundtables empower users and groups to have more authority over managing the resources in their communities.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcomes
Monitoring of West Coast Aquatic’s work is done both formally and informally. The Governance Board has set four strategic priorities: collaborative governance, ecosystem approach, access to resources, and stewardship. For each priority, outcomes, outputs, activities and indicators are developed that are guided by the Coastal Strategy. At the end of each year, the Governance Board reviews areas of success and opportunities for advancement in the coming year. Some of the outcomes that are monitored include:

Governance:
• Improvement in the quality and inclusiveness of marine resource based decisions.
• Reduction in the potential for conflicts between users.

Ecosystem Approach:
• Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide recommendations are harmonized with government advisory processes.
• Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide information is accessible, up-to-date, and is factored into the development and review of applications.
• Planning is ecosystem based.

Access to Resources:
• Improved community access to seafood.
• Expanded economic diversity and activities, and increased economic stability.

Stewardship:
• Areas that are integral to marine ecosystem health and abundance are protected.
• Stewardship actions of resource users are increased.

For the Roundtables’, the Terms of Reference and goals are reviewed annually, and a post-season evaluation is conducted by all Roundtable participants to assess the success of the harvest plans. Feedback is then incorporated during joint development of the coming year’s plans.

Practical Outcomes

Since 2001, the West Coast Aquatic Governance Board has maintained the participation by all governments, First Nations and sectors. Recently, the Terms of Reference was amended so that the appointment of First Nations’ representatives was more reflective of the First Nations’ governance structures. This has increased the number of First Nations’ seats from two to eight, and this is anticipated to increase their connection to the Governance Board.

Access to resources and community benefit from resource use are two important issues for the Governance Board. WCVI fishers continue to struggle with the impacts of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which has led to a 52% reduction in Chinook catch and 28% reduction in the regional troll fleet. This has the potential to profoundly change trolling as an economic component of coastal livelihoods and as a historic aspect of the fishing industry.

West Coast Aquatic is facilitating discussions between troll groups with the goal of bringing a consensus proposal to the Federal government on the use of the remaining Chapter 3 (Chinook) mitigation fund, and is also hosting WCVI wide discussions so community interests can be documented and included in the negotiations of a new version of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

One action item identified in the Coastal Strategy was the need for marine spatial planning. The goal was to be able to assess the intersection between activities and values, thereby promoting the conservation of significant ecological, cultural and social values as the ‘right activities are matched to the right location’.

Over a three-year period, West Coast Aquatic embarked on an extensive process with its community partners to conduct extensive interviews that documented new knowledge, verify existing information through community experts, and carry out modeling using the Marine InVEST and Marxan models. Another year was spent gathering additional feedback through sector and public review sessions.

After thoughtful discussions about West Coast Aquatic’s role, and in order to ensure that the authority of decision makers was maintained, it has been decided that the end product of these efforts is not a “plan”, but more of a resource that will guide ecosystem based decision making that is inclusive of indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge (Figure 3). The 300 data layers and associated decision-making recommendations will be available online in an interactive platform later in 2016.

The salmon Roundtables continue and have been cited up and down the coast as a successful model and regional solution that can contribute towards the federal government’s mandate to “work with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, and other stakeholders to better co-manage our three oceans.”(1) Based on the success of the salmon Roundtables, discussions continue on the potential of using the Roundtable model for the management of other species.

Figure 3: Community-Based Planning (Photo Credit: West Coast Aquatic staff)

West Coast Aquatic also facilitated the Pacific Rim Education and Tourism Committee through a year of research and strategy development on Education Tourism opportunities for four central west coast communities. Agreeing on the viability of the opportunity, communities are now inviting other communities and several strategic partners to join them in the implementation phase that will be led by the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust. While a new economic opportunity is progress in itself, perhaps the even greater success was having two indigenous and two non-indigenous communities form a partnership around a common interest.

Next Steps:
Within the Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide (tentative name, previously known as the Marine Spatial Plan), ecologically significant areas (ESA) were identified. Currently, 31% of the Clayoquot Sound is formally protected, however another 28% has been identified as being ecologically significant. As the next step, West Coast Aquatic will initiate a multi-sector engagement process that investigates what conservation measures (e.g. ranging from protocols through to formal marine protected areas) might be desirable and effective for the new ESAs. This initiative can also contribute towards the federal government’s mandate of “increasing the proportion of Canada’s marine and coastal areas that are protected to five percent by 2017, and ten percent by 2020”(1).

On the ground monitoring was initiated in the Clayoquot Sound based on data gaps identified in the Chinook Risk Assessment (e.g. water quality, temperature, pH, and alkalinity). The next major undertaking will be the development of a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that goals in the Coastal Strategy are being met, and that use of the Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide is in fact leading to the desired conservation goals. A series of workshops will be held to identify what monitoring is already taking place, what indicators are most meaningful for communities, and which partners will take on the implementation of monitoring which indicators

References

1. Office of the Prime Minister. 2015. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard mandate letter.

Acknowledgements

West Coast Aquatic recognizes that our work would not be possible without the generous participation and contribution of many knowledgeable First Nations, community organizations, non-governmental organizations, government ministries and departments, academics, and community members.

Thank you to the CCRN for its financial support, which has been directed towards community engagement and capacity building. We are grateful to the Alberni Clayoquot Regional District for their grants towards the core of our organization, the West Coast Aquatic Governance Board. And, the ability to facilitate the salmon Roundtables is due to the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI) Co-management Element.
West Coast Aquatic also extends special appreciation to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for its commitment to marine conservation, and for generously funding the development of the Coastal Strategy and Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide.

This research is being carried out with the aid of a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian International Development Research Centre, a doctoral award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, a SSHRC grant held by Dr. Derek Armitage as part of a Coastal-Marine Transformation Project, and support from the SSHRC-funded Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN).

View the CCRN’s Maya Zone Community Story as a PDF

Karla Diana Infante-Ramírez, Malloni Puc-Alcocer and *A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Mexico (ECOSUR), *aarce@ecosur.mx and aibarra@dal.ca

Key Messages

• The Maya Zone’s tropical rainforests in Quintana Roo state of Mexico provide many provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.
• Both the government and the Maya people themselves have their own meanings of conservation and their own motivations for conservation.
• Community conservation initiatives must be part of national and international conservation programs.

Community Introduction

Quintana Roo’s “Maya Zone”, located in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, is a biocultural region with inhabitants who speak the Maya-Yucatec language in their daily lives. The Maya people rely on rainforest resources and agriculture as their main livelihoods. Maya communities also practice slash-and burn-cultivation (“milpa”) which is regarded as a cultural tradition. The communities are organized into common holdings called “ejidos”. Here we focus on the ejidos of Noh Cah and X-Maben (Figure 1), particularly their main towns (“Noh Cah” and “Señor”), with 86 and 3,095 inhabitants, respectively. In socio-economic terms, these communities are highly marginalized.

The Maya Zone is located in well-preserved tracts of tropical rainforest which provides a portfolio of ecosystem services1,2 to the users and communities dependent on it, including: a) provisioning services such as food (e.g., small-scale game, gathering of medicinal plants, and fish from water-filled sinkholes called “cenotes”); b) regulating services such as protection from hurricanes; c) cultural services such as using the sacred “cenotes” for baptism, and recreational inland fisheries; and d) supporting services including CO2 sink source.

The Maya people from these communities utilize these various services, and engage in conservation activities that help to maintain the services. The complex meanings they have for such conservation, as well as their motivations for conservation, are important factors in the social subsystem of the Maya Zone.

Figure 1. Study area in Quintana Roo´s Maya Zone.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

The Maya Zone area has been impacted by the effects of climatic variability (climate change). Over the last three decades, people in the communities have reported that rains have not arrived at expected times or in usual quantities. This has affected the productivity of traditional agriculture (“milpa”), a rain-fed system, resulting in insufficient harvests of staple foods to support local needs3. In addition to this challenge, several species are endangered in the region, for instance, the jaguar and the peccary, affecting biodiversity and the local residents.

In the 1990s, the federal government launched an international initiative on biodiversity conservation called the “Mesoamerican Biological Corridor”. However, that conservation program was based on a top-down approach, and hence did not (and still does not) take into account the kind of local conservation activities practiced by the local people. Being descendants of the ancient Maya civilization, and depending heavily on rainforest resources, people in communities of this area still actively look after those resources.

Community Initiative

Local authorities in the Maya Zone actively explore opportunities to receive support for environmental activities. A recent example was the possibility of applying for funding to a federal ‘payment for environmental services’ program. The local authorities recognized that many locals did not understand (from a Western-science perspective) what “an environmental service” was, and thus engaged with the CCRN-ECOSUR team to organize a seminar on ‘what is an environmental service’ and the ‘payment for environmental services’ program. Other seminars have been held, on topics suggested by the local residents and others suggested by the CCRN-ECOSUR team. Another was about “Climatic variability in the Yucatan Peninsula” (Figure 2) and addressed the influence of major weather events, for example the “El Niño Southern Oscillation” (ENSO), which affects mainly primary activities in the region.

These seminars aimed to improve the capacity of the communities in dealing with climate variability. This capacity building is being accompanied by monitoring of the Maya social-ecological system using indicators focused on climate variability and its impact on livelihoods, such as slash and burn-shifting cultivation.

Figure 2. Seminar presentation on “Climatic variability in the Yucatan Peninsula” delivered to inhabitants of Noh cah and “Señor” Maya communities by Karla Infante Ramírez (Photo credit: Karina Chale Silveira).

The capacity building activities that locals and community groups participated in also looked at the local meanings of conservation and motivations toward conservation. The results, presented back to the communities, provide feedback based on their experience and local knowledge (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Presenting results on the meanings of ‘Conservation’ back to Noh Cah inhabitants by Malloni Puc Alcocer. As local people from Noh cah prefer to discuss in the Maya language, Mr. Xool (red cap) worked in the research team as a translator (Photo credit: A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra).

Practical Outcomes

Understanding the meanings and motivations of the Maya people towards conservation is a complex subject. Research results indicate that there are two types of motivations for conservation in these Maya communities, namely extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. The former derives from government-based conservation programs, whereas the latter are people’s own motivations. According to Puc-Alcocer4, two types of conservation of the rainforest are in place in this region: one referring to the conservation programs implemented by the government and the other (the Kanan K’áax) which is a type of Maya community-based conservation. “Kanan K’áax” is a Maya phrase and literally means “to look after the rainforest” (Kanan means ‘look after’ and K’áax means ‘rainforest’).

Local Maya conservation initiatives that are in place need to be included in national and international conservation programs. Therefore, it is suggested that the improved understanding of Maya meanings and motivations for conservation reflected here be taken into consideration by conservation initiatives such as the “Mesoamerican Biological Corridor” and also by state institutions dealing with development programs in the Maya area and elsewhere in Mexico.

References

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

2. Infante-Ramírez, K. D. and Arce-Ibarra, A.M. (2015). Percepción local de los servicios ecológicos y de bienestar de la selva de la zona maya en Quintana Roo, México [Local perception of the ecological services and well-being of the Maya Zone’s rainforest from Quintana Roo, México]. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, 2015(86), 67-81.

3. Bello-Baltazar, E. (2001). Milpa y madera, la organización de producción entre Mayas de Quintana Roo. Doctor of Science Thesis in Social Anthropology. Universidad Iberoamericana, México, DF.

4. Puc Alcocer, M. 2015. Conservación comunitaria de la selva maya en los ejidos Noh-Cah y X-maben, Quintana Roo. [Community-based conservation of the rainforest at the common holdings of Noh Cah and X-Maben, Quintana Roo]. Masters Thesis. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Chetumal.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Maya people and their local authorities for granting us consent to undertake research on their lands. Our main source of funding came from the SSHRC-CCRN project. We thank all the support received from Saint Mary´s University and CCRN staff. Partial support for our research came from ECOSUR and CONACyT fiscal funds. CONACyT also granted scholarships to pursue the graduate studies of K.D. Infante-Ramírez and M. Puc-Alcocer.

Directed by Kent Martin, and Produced by CCRN Partner and Researcher, Dr. Trudy Sable, the film celebrates the resilience of the Mi’kmaq, and Indigenous people in general; the rich landscape and resources which were available to them prior to colonization, the medicines and wild food that are still available and the sacredness of the food that sustains human beings spiritually, culturally, and physically.