EXAMINING BEST PRACTICES IN COASTAL
ZONE PLANNING:
LESSONS AND APPLICATIONS FOR BC’S
CENTRAL COAST
Alert Bay, BC
April 2-4, 2003
Summary Report
Inner Coast
Natural Resource Centre
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Acknowledgements
Authors
Kelly Vodden, Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre/Simon Fraser University; Jennifer Penikett,
Simon Fraser University and Michael Berry, Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre (ICNRC)
On behalf of the organizers we would like to thank the following people and organizations that
contributed to making this event a success:
Steering Committee
Andrea Sanborn, Executive Director, U’mista Cultural Centre; Co-chair, ICNRC
Michael Berry, ALBY Systems Ltd.; Project Coordinator, ICNRC
Kelly Vodden, Project Coordinator, ICNRC; Researcher, Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon
Fraser University
Patricia Gallaugher, Director, Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University; External
Board Member, ICNRC
Laurie Wood, Coordinator, Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University
Brenda Bauer, Integrated Management Coordinator, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Marty Weinstein, Aquatic Resources Coordinator, ‘Namgis First Nation; Board Member, ICNRC
Sponsors
OMRN Linking Science and Local
Knowledge Node
‘Namgis First Nation
Western Economic Diversification Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Environment Canada
BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management
Finally, special thanks are due to the ‘Namgis First Nation and Village of Alert Bay for their
warm hospitality.
Gilakas’la
The Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre is an association with a membership of 22
organizations, including educational institutions, First Nations, business groups, non-profit
societies, and senior governments having interest in Northern Vancouver Island and its
natural resources, culture, and communities. The mission of the ICNRC is to provide a forum
for North Island Communities that recognizes, enhances and sustains social, cultural,
economic, and environmental values.
The Centre for Coastal Studies at Simon Fraser University is the home of the Linking
Science and Local Knowledge: Building Capacity for Integrated and Sustainable
Management of Coastal Resources node, which is one of three nodes of the national Ocean
Management Research Network (OMRN) from SSHRC/DFO Joint Initiatives. The main
objective of this node administered by the Centre for Coastal Studies at Simon Fraser
University is to link scientific knowledge with local knowledge for improved, sustainable
oceans and coastal management, and to assist Fisheries and Oceans Canada with an
ecosystem approach to ocean resource management. This node is made up of academic
investigators and collaborators along with 71 partner organizations, including the Inner
Coast Natural Resource Centre.
-2-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
Introduction
The Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre of northern
Vancouver Island, in partnership with Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Simon Fraser University Centre for
Coastal Studies and the Ocean Management Research
Network Linking Science and Local Knowledge Node,
held a workshop on coastal planning in Alert Bay, BC
April 2-4, 2003.
http://www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/linking/calendar.htm
The three-day workshop brought together First Nations,
coastal community residents, fishermen, industry
representatives, federal and provincial agencies,
academics, non-government organizations and others,
from across Canada and the US. Participants included
approximately 135 individuals with an interest in coastal
resources and therefore a potential role in developing
resource use plans for the BC Central Coast and other
coastal regions. Activities included resource mapping
technology demonstrations, a cultural walking tour,
Kwakwaka’wakw dance performance and seafood feast
hosted by ‘Namgis First Nation, within in whose
traditional territory the workshop was held. Session
topics included:
Chief
Bill Cranmer,
Chief Bill
Cranmer,
‘Namgis
FirstNation
Nation
‘Namgis First
•
Coastal Resources Mapping
•
Why Do We Need a Coastal Plan?
•
Community, Industry and Government Priorities for Central Coast Planning
•
Best Practices and Lessons from Around the Globe, Eastern and Northern Canada and
British Columbia
•
A Review of the Quatsino Sound Planning Process
•
Rights and Responsibilities for Coastal Planning
•
Strategies and Processes for Effective Local Involvement
•
Recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title in Coastal Zone Planning
•
Tools and Approaches for Incorporating Conservation Objectives
•
Can Coastal Planning Support Sustainable Community Economic Development?
•
Lessons Learned for the Central Coast pilot project
The proceedings of this event are recorded in two separate documents. The present document,
provides a summary of ten key lessons learned, in no particular order, about coastal planning
(see Table 1). Each of these lessons represents a broad, overall theme under which a number
of specific stories, approaches, tools and recommendations were discussed throughout the
workshop. The second on-line document provides a summary of each speaker’s presentation,
where possible with PowerPoint slides attached. Both are available at
www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/calendar.htm
-3-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Table 1. Ten Key Lessons Learned
Assert community rights and leadership
Recognize Aboriginal rights and title
Create and commit to new ways of working together
Determine the appropriate scale for planning and management
Set realistic timelines
Practice adaptive management, think ahead, use the precautionary approach and learnby-doing
7. Make capacity-building an integral part of the planning process
8. Integrate local and scientific knowledge- include existing information and strive to fill
critical knowledge gaps
9. Recognize and incorporate multiple values and uses
10. Ensure ecosystem health and integrity.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Workshop Purpose
With the release of Canada’s
Oceans Strategy (COS) in 2002
the Central Coast, including
northern Vancouver Island
communities, watersheds and
coastal areas, was designated
as an Oceans Act Integrated
Management planning area.
Having gone through the
Vancouver Island Land Use
Plan, Central Coast Land and
Coastal Resource Management
Plan (CCLRMP) and most
recently the North Island Straits
and Quatsino planning
processes, local residents and
organizations wondered what
yet another planning process
would accomplish. What had we
Figure 1. LOMA Boundary
learned from these past
Courtesy Fisheries and Oceans Canada
experiences that could improve
this latest rendition? What lessons could be learned from elsewhere around the world and
Canada? How did Fisheries and Oceans Canada plan to proceed with implementing integrated
management planning in this area?
Together the Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre with Simon Fraser University Centre for
Coastal Studies and the OMRN Linking Science and Local Knowledge Node decided to host a
workshop. Partnering with DFO, the goal was to create a space where north island/central coast
residents, along with outside experts and community representatives from Canada’s east and
west coasts, could learn from one other and discuss these important and timely questions.
-4-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
Background on the Region
Cormorant Island, home to the Village of Alert Bay and the ‘Namgis First Nation, lies within the
region known as Northern Vancouver Island, a region that generally corresponds with the
boundaries of the Kwakwaka’wakw Nations’ traditional territories and of the Mount Waddington
Regional District1. Under new planning frameworks such as the Central Coast Land and
Resource Management Plan (CCLRMP, provincial (Figure 2)) and the Central Coast Large
Ocean Management Area (LOMA, federal (Figure 1)) the north island region has been
subsumed within the larger region known as the “Central Coast”. The new regional definition
includes three provincially designated regional districts: Comox-Strathcona (northern portion),
Mount Waddington and Central Coast.
The Central Coast region, as defined by
the Fisheries and Oceans Canada
LOMA, is home to 54,000 people. Nearly
two-thirds of this population lives in the
urban centre of Campbell River, located
at the region’s southern edge. The
remaining third (approx 20,000
individuals) are scattered in small towns
such as Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Alert
Bay, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, First
Nation reserve communities and remote
areas. There are 23 First Nations whose
traditional territories lie within the Central
Coast LOMA, a culturally rich but
complex area. Many but not all of these
Nations are engaged in treaty
negotiations. In total there are 37
recorded communities outside of
Campbell River, with populations
ranging from 5 to 4,600. The area north
of Port Hardy previously known as the
“Central Coast” (e.g. the Central Coast
Regional District) is home to only 3,800
residents.
Populations declined throughout the
region in the late 1990s, most
predominantly in Mount Waddington RD
Figure 2. Central Coast LRMP Areas. Courtesy BC Land Use
(-10.2%). Growing First Nations
Coordination Office
communities have helped to offset this
decline, the Aboriginal population representing a minimum of 20% and 59% of the total
population in Mount Waddington and Central Coast Regional Districts respectively (Statistics
Canada 2001).
The Central Coast region contains significant ecological wealth and diversity. It encompasses a
variety of biophysical conditions, including four ecoregions, seven ecosections and eight
biogeoclimatic zones (provincial ecological classifications). It supports over 200 species of
1
Regional Districts were added to the local government system in BC in the 1960s to act as regional governments,
provide joint services among municipalities within a region and serve rural areas that do not have municipal status.
-5-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
marine fish, internationally significant seabird colonies along with shorebirds, eagles, herons,
and migratory waterfowl. It is also renowned for its mammal populations (land and sea),
particularly the grizzly bear and orca whale but also mountain goat, elk and many others. Some
of the most productive forests in the world grow here, along with recently discovered unique
sponge reefs in Hecate Strait. It is a highly valuable and diverse ecosystem.
Despite the cultural and ecological riches of the region, it is also an area plagued by economic
and environmental pressures, including: high unemployment; dependence on declining primary
resource industries (e.g. forestry and fishing) as well as a declining public service sector;
demands for increased environmental protection; and conflicts associated with both resource
depletion/scarcity an increasing diversity of uses. The search for new economic alternatives
includes shellfish and finfish aquaculture, tourism and oil and gas, each with their own
challenges. The Central Coast region is clearly in need of integrated coastal planning. This is a
complex region, however, exacerbated by new regional boundaries that expand the definition of
“region” three-fold in this special part of the BC coast.
History of Coastal Planning: Canada, BC and the Central Coast Region
The field of management of human development along Canada’s coastlines, and elsewhere in
the world, has a language of its own. The coastal manager’s dictionary includes phrases such
as coastal planning, coastal zone planning, coastal zone management, and integrated coastal
(or coastal zone) management. Various agencies and authors provide definitions that
distinguish between each of these terms2. Kay and Alder (1999) point out, however, that
planning and management activities are so strongly linked in successful programs that they are
nearly inseparable. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) further
suggests that the multifaceted character
of coastal issues and the need for a
In the past we have typically reacted in an ad hoc
basis.
holistic management approach is now
- Rob Paynter, BC Ministry of Sustainable
widely recognized, so that while
Resource Management (MSRM)
`integrated coastal zone management'
(ICZM) may be a preferred term,
integration in coastal planning and
management can almost be assumed.
The 1997 Oceans Act established the foundation
In both management and policy-making,
for a coastal planning approach.
plans are established as a means of
- Brenda Bauer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
putting broad goals such as sustainable
development along with more specific
objectives and strategies into action. Planning processes can also help to establish these
aspirations. The link between planning and action is critical in a world where coastal habitats are
being continually degraded and destroyed, biodiversity lost, and species, along with water
quality and volumes, are declining. Traditional resource users and communities continue to lose
access to these reduced resources and face mounting conflicts over what remains.
In an attempt to address these serious issues, multiple coastal zone management processes
and plans have been launched from the local to global level. Globally, coastal zone
management has been on the agenda in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere since the 1970s. In
the U.S., the Coastal Zone Management Act set out a federal CZM policy and objectives for
implementation as far back as 1972. The need for integrated coastal management received
2
(FAO 1998, Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998)
-6-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
international recognition at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED). The 1992 Rio Earth Summit (Agenda 21, Chapter 17) outlines a
commitment by coastal nations to `integrated management and sustainable development of
coastal areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdiction'.
I live on Haida Gwaii. In the last five years
there have been no less than eight
processes addressing resource
management issues on the islands… all
calling for and, in fact, requiring community
participation. … CZM is not independent
of any of these processes. It must work to
be the matrix of all of the processes- most
of which involve the same individuals,
organizations, and agencies. … the
processes I mentioned are, in a way, CZM
in disguise. They are also largely unlinked
and disconnected.
In Canada, “Shore Zone Management” was
initiated by a 1978 agreement on ten broad
principles by the Canadian Council of Resource
and Environment Ministers (CCREM) and the
appointment of a national Shore Zone Coordinator.
The Federal Shore Zone Program (FSZP) was
launched in 1980 to ensure co-ordination of federal
policies and activities, and to promote federal
participation with the provinces, in the planning of
shore zone areas3.
On both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, CZM
programs have been developed on an area basis.
The Fraser River Estuary Management Program
- Catherine Rigg, SFU PhD Candidate
and Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative are early
BC examples, along with others profiled in this document. Provincial land use planning
processes launched in the 1990s, including the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan and Central
Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CCLRMP), also involved planning for the
use of coastal areas.
Finally, in 1997 the federal Oceans Act was passed, requiring a national oceans management
strategy guided by the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary approach and
integrated management (www.cos-soc.gc.ca). Canada’s Oceans Strategy explains how to
implement the Act. It is a policy statement on the management of estuarine, coastal and marine
ecosystems released in July 2002 that promises governance reform in three areas: 1) the
establishment of institutional governance mechanisms to enhance coordinated, collaborative
oceans management within various levels of government, 2) a program of integrated
management planning, and 3) promotion of oceans stewardship and public awareness.
Canada’s Oceans Strategy contains commitments to develop large-scale and local Integrated
Management plans for all of Canada’s oceans, starting with priority areas.
With all of this activity in coastal planning and management in Canada the question of
coordination arises, but more importantly, why after all of these years of planning are the
communities and resources of the coast still in trouble? What have we learned? And how might
these lessons of the past be applied to future planning efforts, in the central coast of BC and
elsewhere?
Ten Key Themes
Ten key themes arose continually throughout the speaker presentations and participant
discussions at this workshop (see Table 1, page 2). Lessons learned relate to each of these
themes and how they might be applied in the north island/central coast and other coastal
regions. These lessons represent the major outcomes of this conference. We hope that these
outcomes will contribute directly to the implementation of Canada’s Oceans Strategy and thus to
improved management of Canada’s coastal and ocean resources and the sustainability of
coastal peoples and communities.
3
(Hildebrand 1989, Huggett 2003)
-7-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Theme/Lesson #1: Assert community rights and leadership
Recognition of the need for strong coastal community
participation and leadership in coastal planning and
management was a central reason for holding this
workshop. The importance of community involvement in
coastal planning was reiterated throughout the three days.
It was pointed out that, while the benefits of local
involvement are important, the basic rights of communities
to access resources adjacent to them and secure a
sustainable livelihood (within the limits of conservation)
must also be acknowledged.
It was stated that while policies such as the Oceans
Strategy claim a commitment to community participation
(and devolution of responsibility has occurred in some
areas), planning and decision-making processes are
normally based out of urban centers such as Vancouver
and Victoria.
Aboriginal rights are not taken
into account with the New
Brunswick plan... The rights of
First Nations, traditional fishers,
industry and local communities
all need to be addressed. All
groups should be able to ask if
their rights are secure, and what
the physical and legal aspects
are to those rights. Many coastal
property rights laws are
customarily not written…. The
community also has a right to a
sustainable livelihood.
- Sue Nichols, University of
New Brunswick
We have to let everyone know
that sustainable communities are
part of the picture when it comes
to coastal planning.
- Michele Patterson, World
Wildlife Fund
Participants suggested that an important reason for local
involvement is that action generally occurs at the local
level. One person commented on the minimal awareness
at higher levels of how coastal activities actually occur, suggesting that what really happens at
the ground level is currently not related to the planning and policy process. Community
involvement can help address this gap.
A second important justification for local involvement is that effective CZM requires
understanding of the culture, traditions, and history of a given place. There is a need to
recognize context. As a result, while there may be lessons to be learned from elsewhere, there
is no blueprint or single tried and true formula that will work. Each process must be locally
specific and appropriate.
Speaker Don Robadue gave the example of Xcalak, Mexico, a small community who wanted a
marine park. The planning process was highly successful. It was initiated and desired by the
local people and developed in concert with a community tourism and development plan:
There was ample village participation in the planning stages. The local community
submitted the required technical documents, included community members in gathering
information, created a voluntary committee on the marine park proposal, and assigned
part time staff based in the village. The village prepared the community strategy for the
Xcalak Area, and helped other villagers to take a number of small steps to carry forward
some practical actions, while also getting community and NGO leaders involved in the
process of preparing the environmental master plan for the coast.
The results achieved so far are the creation of a 17,000ha marine protected area legally
established, with a plan and implementation mechanism in place and national
recognition with NGO support and external funding. There is community representation
on the MPA technical committee and the Costa Maya environmental ordinance
committee, with some community members trained to participate in tourism activities.
-8-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
Communities need help, but not
social welfare. Communities need
access – community-based tenure
systems… the strategy that the
people on the west coast of
Vancouver Island took, which started
in the mid-early 1990s, was to build
a cooperative management body
within the region and then take that
cooperative management body and
invite federal and provincial
governments to join in...
- Andrew Day, West Coast
Vancouver Island Aquatic
Management Board
A good coastal plan belongs to
coastal communities. Don’t overly
rely on outside experts and alienate
people who live in the immediate
area… A good coastal plan will work
when a community is ready and able
to participate meaningfully. Local
ownership of processes and projects
increases community support,
involvement, and commitment.
Catherine Rigg, SFU
... the research shows that the most
successful MPAs are those that are
supported by the community.
- Natalie Ban, CPAWS
The key question relating to local
management is how is it sustained.
- Don Robadue, University of Rhode
Island
Small communities need volunteers
and organizational support.
- Pam Comeau, Bay of Fundy
Marine Resource Centre
We cannot use this as a
downloading mechanism. We do not
need more consultation. We need
better consultation.
– Rob Paynter , MSRM
Omer Chouinard provided an example from the east coast
of Canada, Cap-Pelé, NB, an area that is comprised of two
rural communities with a total population of 5,000. Tourism
is becoming increasingly important to this area so the
community members came together to clean a local
stream. With the support of town council and with the help
of commercial fishermen, citizens groups, seniors and
children, the clean-up was completed and the seniors and
school children were able to explore the linkages and
networks created by environmental action.
Omer Chouinard spoke about what is needed for a
successful community project:
There needs to be a decentralized and collaborative
approach to manage resources, an approach that is
inclusive of all citizens, both those that are considered
productive and those which society considers to be
underproductive, the youths and seniors.
On a local level the example of Quatsino Sound was
given as a case where local Regional District and First
Nation governments saw the need for a coastal planning
process and were involved throughout in a leadership
capacity.
Federal representative Brenda Bauer shared the history:
“There are issues in the Sound where there are
roadblocks for business development and the marine
environment is not being protected… There are 32
agencies to deal with for shellfish proposals, which are
delaying projects by years… this came about through the
Regional District/Quatsino First Nation shellfish initiative”.
A member of the Quatsino First Nation further explained,
“The province wanted to put out shellfish leases and
make parks for tourism, kayaking and so on. It was
going to happen without the Band but we said, there
has to be some planning and we have to be
involved…the provincial and federal governments were
headed in different directions”.
-9-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Chief Tom Nelson
demonstrated the
resource mapping
capabilities that had
been developed by the
Nation as part of the
planning process and
the role that Quatsino
First Nation-led
information gathering
and analysis activities
have played in the
development of the
plan.
Another First Nations
representative
cautioned that all
communities have to be
careful of foreign
investors in their areas,
suggesting that these
investors tend to have
Figure 3. Quatsino Sound, BC
more rights than
communities. A speaker suggested that the process of defining community rights is critical but
bound to be difficult given the tension that already exists between federal,provincial and First
Nations rights to resources, responsibilities and jurisdiction.
In defining rights it was suggested, using the example of the CCLRMP, that one of the most
controversial questions is “Who is considered a local?”
How is the community with ‘local’ rights defined?
Are closer communities equal to more rights?
Does longevity give community a more valid claim?
Consensus planning, one speaker suggested, tends to avoid these touchy issues, which the
CCLRMP has not been able to resolve.
“Local to us means those that live in the community, not those that come and go”
- Participant
Notes of caution and realism were also expressed regarding the ability and willingness of
communities to exercise leadership in coastal planning. Communities should assert their rights,
but with this comes the responsibility of leadership, and issues of burn out, lack of
awareness/interest and lack of funding.
Local governments rarely have the resources in terms of funding, technical capacity, or even
jurisdiction, to work proactively on CZM. One participant pointed out that when rural
communities are struggling to maintain essential services such as hospitals and schools, there
-10-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
is very little political will to move coastal zone planning to the top of the priority list. She
suggested, therefore, that community priorities be established and realistic, manageable
projects identified accordingly.
Another dilemma for community leaders is the issue of communication and allocation of limited
time and human resources. As a community leader/organization it is difficult to maintain an
appropriate balance between time spent in your home region trying to build relationships and
gather input, and the time spent with dealing with groups outside the region. Human and
financial resources are required to sustain relationships, along with training and development of
effective communications tools and strategies.
Yet another problem is the lack of awareness, interest and involvement of the general public in
communities. Community awareness and education programs were suggested as a solution,
along with information/dialogue forums and workshops (see also Lesson #7 - Capacity Building,
page 21).
“We are the stewards of the land resources and we have not been able to look after it… We know
what is going to work with our people. This is an opportunity for us to bring our plan to you…We are
struggling today to get treaties so that we can meet the needs of our people for years to come”.
- Hereditary Chief Ed Newman, Heiltsuk First Nation
“It is ironic that all of a sudden we need to bring in First Nations, it is a token form of respect of our
knowledge. You need to have knowledge and respect of our aboriginal rights and titles. All you
need to do is acknowledge and listen”.
- Chief Sherry Pictou, Bear River First Nation
…the money will stay in the community, and the community will benefit. The ‘Namgis manage their
own health care delivery, schools, social development, administration. Now all we need is capacity.
What we are missing is capacity. We need money to be allowed to make our own decisions. We
need to figure out how to share in resources… (to collect) royalties for resources that are extracted
from our land.
- Chief Bill Cranmer, ‘Namgis First Nation
From the general public there was a great outcry to the race-based fishery. Concerns were raised
about unemployment in the fishing industry. But do they realize that in some First Nations
unemployment is close to 98%?… In Chilliwack the community benefits from the fish being sold.
- Hereditary Chief Simon Lucas, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council
Theme/Lesson #2: Recognize Aboriginal rights and title
The subject of Aboriginal rights and title arose throughout the workshop and was highlighted in
a special feast and panel session on the evening of April 3rd. Success in coastal planning in
Canada requires that the special rights and relationships of the First coastal peoples and
communities be recognized and taken into account. One speaker described this unique
relationship as one of “belonging to the land”. Respect for Aboriginal rights and title should be
extended, others pointed out, to recognition of and respect for traditional attitudes, uses, and
cultures. This proposed shift would represent a foundation for moving forward in a collaborative
way. It would also have significant consequences for how coastal resources, lands and waters
are planned and managed and imply major changes in past practices and relationships, with
provincial and federal governments, the private sector and neighbouring communities.
-11-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Participants discussed the role that the courts have played in encouraging a change in this
direction. In recent years court decisions have forced governments to pay attention to Aboriginal
rights and title and to adjust their policies and programs accordingly. A Fisheries and Oceans
representative pointed out, for example, that the selection of the Central Coast as a pilot
integrated management area was partially due to the existing LRMP process, but also because
of treaty concerns.
First Nations’ leaders explained that until recently the BC government did not respect the title
and rights of the First Nations people. However, all major cases that have been won in favour of
the First Nations people have been based on title and rights and the BC government cannot
extinguish these rights without justification. If they are justified in the extinguishments of
Aboriginal title and rights then meaningful consultation and compensation is required.
Court cases have been needed to force governments to acknowledge the unique position of
First Nations in Canada: “What is needed is a change of attitude in the local authorities. We
should not have to beg. We need to negotiate…”
First Nations representatives further pointed out
that new arrangements for sharing of resources
and revenues are needed, recognizing that the
necessary reallocation process will be difficult.
Examples were given of the conflicts with nonnative fishers associated with communal fishing
rights allocated under both the Aboriginal
Fisheries Strategy in BC and the Marshall
ruling in the Atlantic.
‘Namgis Hosts Sing Feast Song
First Nations want to take a leadership role, not
just be one partner among many. Participants
explained that they have already exhibited
leadership through conservation and
stewardship initiatives. Chief Sherry Pictou of Bear River First Nation, Nova Scotia provided an
example:
There is a battle brewing with Atlantic salmon. How do you exercise your right to fish
when there are no fish? … For First Nations people it is not about access it is about
culture… We have been off of the water voluntarily since 1999. It has been almost four
years and we are still not back there.
Reasons for recognizing Aboriginal rights and title extend beyond legal obligation and
conservation benefits to a very real need among First Nations communities for both
conservation and development (moral and ethical rationale). Speakers told of their home
communities suffering from dismal social and economic conditions, but also from the loss of
language and culture.
Speaker Alex Clapp raised the Central Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (CCLRMP)
as one model that incorporates Aboriginal rights while planning is taking place. First Nation
priority areas are identified as an initial promise of land/space in lieu of a land claim or while
negotiations are taking place.
-12-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
Challenges as well as opportunities for non-First Nations governments and communities
working with First Nations were discussed. Participants stressed the need to identify mutual
benefits where they exist. Regional District of Mount Waddington representative Bill Shephard
used the example of remote community settlement:
As forestry activities move beyond old growth harvesting and as the native community
acquires forest resources through the land claim process there will be more
opportunities for local settlement…. communities such as Kingcome Inlet … These sites,
developed over thousands of years, are the most desirable and convenient places to
settle on the coast.
Suggestions were made for how cooperative communities might be developed. At the same
time the challenges of developing joint settlement frameworks for the inclusion of outsiders in
existing and traditional native communities were recognized, along with those of financing,
developing and operating shared community services.
Another participant described the situation in her community:
It is felt that if you are living on Haida Gwaii then it is your responsibility, it is important
to recognize the First Nations... The federal and provincial government have not done it.
The Haida are speaking in a language that is more familiar to non-First Nations people
than the federal and provincial governments that are representing us.
Others spoke of already developed Native-non-Native collaborative arrangements, including the
Gitga’at Nation (Hartley Bay in northern BC) marine use planning framework project being
undertaken in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund (WWF). WWF and the Gitga’at signed a
Protocol in 2001. Phase 1 of the project will be an information review, synthesis and marine use
opportunities analysis. Phase 2 will consist of field inventory and assessment, scenario
planning and consensus building. Phase 3 will be negotiations, implementation and
institutionalization.
Another example of cooperation cited was the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, in the Arctic,
where six primarily (85%) Inuvialuit communities co-manage resources, lands and waters with
the federal government under the 18 year old Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The Agreement is
based on full title to lands around the six communities and co-management of the entire area,
including the ocean. According to speaker Jack Mathias of DFO, if there is conflict between this
agreement and other laws in place (federal provincial or municipal) this agreement will take
precedence over the others.
In this example, there are three boards and committees that manage the land and resources:
the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Wildlife Management Advisory Committee, and the
Environmental Impact Screening Committee. Each body has a different structure. The Fisheries
Joint Management Committee has two Inuvialuit representatives, one DFO representative and
one other representative from the Government of Canada. Those four people elect the
chairman. This committee meets with the Minister once a year. “DFO will get a phone call if
things are not going well. It is quite a powerful sort of arrangement. If the joint management
committee makes a decision, and the Minister does not agree with it, he is obligated to answer
that within 30 days …”
-13-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Other notable features of the Inuvialuit case
include the protection and support of
subsistence hunting and trapping, and the
existence of grassroots committees in each of
the six communities, from which a
representative is elected to the regional body
(e.g. Development Corporation). DFO has
taken on the secretariat role where they do
what the working group tells them to do,
including engagement of other partnerships
and government agencies. A new arrangement
is that DFO employees will work in the
Inuvialuit offices shoulder to shoulder so that it
is an equal partnership. Industry is part of the
process too. There have been community
consultations with the hunters and trappers,
community corporations and elders
committees. Public meetings were also held.
The benefits are that views have been heard,
particularly those of the elders. There is an
increased respect from industry for the
Inuvialuit process. “This is a win-win-win
situation with compliance, certainty and
sustainability”.
There is a disconnect between action and
issues- action is frequently addressed at the
local level, while the issues are
transboundary in nature, the policies
impacting the issue are multi-jurisdictional,
and responsibility is fragmented. We are
here because ICZM aims to unite
government, community, science and
management, and sectoral and public
interests to maintain biodiversity and coastal
communities. …the planning process itself
must be designed to be inclusive, robust,
accessible, and understandable. The human
process for initiating CZM is as important as
ecosystem processes you are managing for.
- Catherine Rigg, SFU
The issue of fish farming has divided our
people. We need to find ways to unite our
people, have us working together. We all
depend of the resources of the sea …
- Hereditary Chief Ed Newman, Heiltsuk
First Nation
There are many different levels of
government, all with their own issues and
agendas that continuously conflict with one
another… The province and DFO are
working much better together now, so this is
a start. It is good that there is a coastal
planning branch, even if it is only three
people. And there is a promise for
integration.
- Rob Paynter, MSRM
On a community-to-community basis the Bear
River First Nation are working with the local
non-profit Marine Resource Centre in Annapolis
Valley while the ‘Namgis First Nation has
been active in planning local economic
development with the neighbouring Village of
Alert Bay, a Village within their traditional
territory, and in research and education
activities of the regional organization Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre (workshop host).
Andrew Day presented the model of the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management
Board (WCVIAMB), where the people on the west coast of Vancouver Island began in the
early-mid 1990s to build a cooperative management body within the region:
We have 14 different First Nations and 22 different towns, and within these towns there
is a lot of politics that goes on. When you deal with management issues, no matter what
the scale you are always dealing with the conflicts and tensions with people that want
power at one and trying to get it from another level. For our part we have tried to pull the
power down as close to the ground as possible… What we have now is the board that
arose out of those negotiations, which is a joint government/non-government board (8
non-government and 2 government reps along with Nuu-chah-nulth reps). See also Box
on page 16
Recognition of Aboriginal rights and title but also mutual respect (a two-way street) and the
establishment of written, legal frameworks were cited as factors in successful relationship
building and co-management efforts.
-14-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
It was suggested that coastal communities should take the initiative in recognizing First Nations
title and leadership, without waiting for Supreme Court decisions or provincial or federal
acknowledgement. “This merely delays proactive management and action at the local level.
This is an opportunity for the issue of power to be confronted ... this is an opportunity for
agencies and communities to demonstrate vision, leadership and courage”.
Theme/Lesson #3: Create new ways of working
together
Despite the need for strong community
involvement and leadership a range of reasons
why a local CZM approach on its own may not be
enough to deliver sustainability were raised,
including problems of capacity, overlapping
jurisdiction and transboundary issues. Coastal
ecosystems are of concern to many different
actors and have many different resources and
uses.
Coastal management, therefore, is a matter of
coordination between these uses and users.
Responsibility for sustainably managing the coast
is shared among all levels of government, along
with coastal users, residents, private companies
and advocacy groups. Local communities, First
Nations and non-First Nations, must work
together with provincial, federal and international
agencies, non-government organizations and
private sector players to better plan and manage
human activities in the coastal zone.
Speakers and participants pointed out that
improved coordination and collaboration involves
changes in individual attitudes, relationship
building and institutional design and reform. For
communities this means not only increased
coordination and conflict resolution at the local
level but also thinking about issues outside of
their immediate realm and “scaling up” their
efforts through networking and collaboration with
“outsiders” and other communities.
There are not a lot of prescriptions with the
new Oceans Act. The idea is to engage
Canadians through stewardship and public
awareness… it is the government’s
responsibility to share information between
departments, between governments and the
public. This integrated management
planning will develop a list of boards and
bodies to establish the plan… There is a
need to figure out what role DFO will play.
- Brenda Bauer, DFO
With these new plans the government is
going into uncharted territory, with this
comes little policy to restrict the
process…The first step will be to talk with
local communities and First Nations so that
we can recognize what the values are. We
will then have to make recommendations, we
may recommend development, and we may
not.
- Rob Paynter, MSRM
At a local level people need to develop an
internal mandate and internal core and
desire to work together and get a
commitment to address those issues in a
meaningful way.
- Andrew Day, WCVIAMB
It is troublesome because when someone
calls you for a meeting it is their agenda that
you have to follow and what you end up
doing is arguing.
- Stan Hunt, ‘Namgis First Nation
… you have government planning one thing,
you have communities planning another,
industry a different thing. We need to row in
the same direction to make progress.
- Wally Brandt, local resident
Several participants described problems with lack
of coordination within senior levels of
government. Government institutions are
frequently working independently with limited
inter-, or even intra-, agency cooperation. Sometimes governments work at cross-purposes. As
such there is no coherence, no coordination, and no consistency.
-15-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
The view was that if we commit to
those two principles we would be
able to work together over time, and
if we ever stray from those principles
we are lost. Over the following years
that was tested over and over again.
The Nuu-chah-nulth had to keep
reminding us that we were here to try
and find a mutual way, a common
agenda. Because of that, for over
five years we have had very diverse
interests, and have made a range of
decisions on everything from herring
management to salmon allocation
and shellfish aquaculture, all very
controversial issues. That is
something that does not really exist
in other parts of Canada, the
commitment to those two basic
principles...
The main lessons that we learned
related to this mandate is that you
need a framework that formalizes the
partnership into a binding
agreement. If not, you end up with
an undefined amorphous relationship
where it is not clear who is charged
with what power. If you leave this
undefined within time there will be
conflict within the parties involved…
It is at this stage that it is recognized
that you cannot just do it at a local
level, you need federal and
provincial governments there. You
can partner with these levels of
governments if you are strong
enough within your core to invite
them to the table. If you are going to
negotiate with them, do it under a
framework. We set up a process
and framework document that states
the formalities of negotiation.
– Andrew Day, WCVIAMB
A federal representative explains:
“There is a three-year strategic plan (for Quatsino) that
was initially designed to be internal (federal). Now we
are trying to collaborate with the province, but the
province’s plan will not be integrative management. The
idea is to create one plan together. We are looking at
tenures on foreshore and deepwater, which is provincial
jurisdiction”.
Yet, it was pointed out, the role of higher-level
governments is critical, providing support that cannot be
covered from local resources and a legislative framework
for long-term sustainability. It was suggested that the
long-term prospects of a coastal planning and
management initiative will be seriously jeopardized if it is
not based on a clear understanding of the legal and
institutional arrangements governing coastal
management and, second, appropriate legal
mechanisms are not used to implement it. Top-down and
bottom-up processes should influence and feed into
each other.
Major findings were presented on integrated coastal
management in counties such as Fiji, demonstrating the
need for national/provincial/regional/village joint planning
and implementation of coastal activities. Management
decisions, suggested speaker Don Robadue, must be
based in the community and supported by government,
provincial offices, church groups and NGO’s and the like.
There is also a need to strengthen mechanisms for
conflict resolution for the coastal management issues.
Finally, coastal planning must involve different academic
and professional disciplines and the private sector, which
operates from local to international scales.
The passing of the Oceans Act was described as an
opportunity to develop a new collaborative way of
working together, with new mechanisms and bodies. As
a policy encompassing all federal agencies it also brings
some promise of interagency coordination.
A process involving a number of stages of building collaborative relationships emerged from the
discussions. The first stage is to agree on the need to work together and the purpose for doing
so. This requires that issues that are meaningful to people get addressed. Several speakers
suggested that this process should start locally and then reach out in a selective manner to
involve people from outside the region/area. At this early stage partnerships are fragile. In the
end both community and senior government commitment must be obtained.
-16-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
The next stage is to start building some formality into the
process, “a document that says this is what we are after,
this is how we are going to get there, these are the
principles we are operating under, and everyone needs to
sign off on it to finalize commitment”.
Here partners begin to build a shared vision, a vision that
adheres to some basic principles but that also brings in the
area’s uniqueness. To do this communities and
governments have to be clear on their own goals,
objectives and values so that they can “put them on the
table” for discussion and negotiation. Honesty and
transparency is important to the success of this phase.
Coastal programs are now generally based on a set of
principles that include sustainable development, the
precautionary principle, and inter-generational equity. Two
basic, agreed upon principles were essential to the
successful establishment of the West Coast Vancouver
Island Aquatic Management Board. The first was the
Nuu-chah-nulth phrase Hishtukish Ts’wwalk, which in
English means everything is one, which essentially means
interdependence; that is, the communities are dependent
on one another and dependent on the resources. The
second rule was respect: Iisaak. That basically says that
the only way to get along is to respect each other’s
interests; that is, the only way we are going to survive with
resources is to respect those resources and recognize
what they need.
The final stage is to formalize a structure for ongoing
planning, management and relationships. Several
examples of new structures have already been discussed,
including various boards and committees with varying
mandates, composition and representation.
There are legal reasons as to
why we are wary of DFO… You
cannot expect any First Nation to
come to the table and not be
angry. You need to allow a
process for healing because it
isn’t realistic to expect people to
be able to remove the
resentment. You cannot silence
the oppressed and say come to
the table to be equal without
recognizing the harm that has
gone on in the past.
- Chief Sherry Pictou, Bear River
First Nation
First Nations individuals are wary
of getting involved in more
process. It is difficult for
aboriginal peoples to trust
government because they have
lied to us in the past and have let
us down.
- Hereditary Chief Ed Newman,
Heiltsuk First Nation
Community-level participation, in
the absence of power sharing,
exploits volunteer time and
energy and undermines
confidence in government-driven
processes.
- Catherine Rigg, SFU
Living Oceans Society hopes that
as we demonstrate our
willingness to consult all parties,
and use the data in a responsible
manner, that much of the distrust
will melt away.
- Jennifer Lash, Living Oceans
Society
When it comes to making decisions as a group, the
Quatsino Sound example is useful. After reaching a basic
agreement on the area in question a process for ongoing
proposal review and approval was developed, including
characterizing proposals as acceptable, conditionally acceptable (triggers for referral), or not
acceptable (do not ever go to referral) based on agreements made during the planning process.
There are many barriers to success in this multi-staged relationship building process. The most
significant one is overcoming the sense of mistrust that has developed among various groups,
whether it is between communities and government, communities themselves, communities and
industry, due to bad experiences in the past. Along with this distrust comes cynicism that, even
with what may sound like or genuinely be the best of intentions, the process will still be flawed in
the end. As one participant pointed out, “There is a massive crisis of confidence and legitimacy
in government agency management in coastal communities. Rebuilding respect and trust will be
a necessary (and incredibly demanding) part of the process”.
-17-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
In summary, to build new ways
of working together there must
be a commitment from all
parties to work together,
strengthen relationships and
address common issues. An
institutional structure and
policy framework that outlines
shared principles and clear
roles and responsibilities is
also required. Institutional
structures should be
decentralized, and established
Participants at the ICNRC
on the basis of effective
participation at the local level.
Mechanisms must be built in for conflict resolution. You need to build trust over time and
understand each other’s constraints.
Limitations to community capacity have been discussed. Other players also have constraints.
For example, a BC government representative reported that in the government there are
currently only three people charged with the responsibility of planning for the whole coastline.
There is a need to be realistic about what individuals and organizations can contribute to a
planning process and consideration given to how constraints can be accommodated or
overcome.
The first lesson we learned is that you need a boundary, and that boundary has to be based on social
ecological and economic aspects of an area that capture the cultural and political realities of the area.
In our area we chose the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations territory....
- Andrew Day, WCVIAMB
Our traditional territories are divided for reasons. The industry drives the boundaries, but it should be
an ecosystem perspective.
- Chief Sherry Pictou, Bear River First Nation
The ocean is large, but perhaps a small estuary is a place to begin with local involvement. If you think
on a smaller scale people will relate ...
– Kelly Vodden, SFU
The project function is something that can happen at a more local level. When people are on the
ground they have a first hand knowledge of the area, and are much more in tune with what has to
happen, people that are more into doing than talking.
- Andrew Day, WCVIAMB
Theme/Lesson #4: Determine the appropriate scale for planning and management
Questions of who should be involved in coastal planning and through what mechanisms are in
part questions of scale. At what scale should planning occur? If at multiple scales, where should
the process begin?
The message that emerged from the workshop participants was that coastal planning can and
should occur at various scales, from site level, local area and regional plans to national and
-18-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
international scale versions. Linkages between each of these are critical. Establishing a
planning scale involves establishing boundaries, however “fuzzy” and flexible those boundaries
may be. They may be boundaries over both time and space. Recommendations related to the
temporal dimensions of planning are discussed further below (Lesson #5, page 19).
… the role of federal government in the
USA system of CZM is to shape and
influence state and local government
CZM plans through the provision of
technical and financial assistance whilst
applying more direct federal control over
certain aspects of the coastal zone
through federal legislation.
- Don Robadue, University of Rhode
Island
Small-scale planning recognizes the importance and
complexity of specific sites and local areas, as well
as the detailed knowledge required to manage them
responsibly and the ability and desire of people who
live in or near these areas to contribute to the
process. The examples of eelgrass beds and
estuaries were raised. Both are critical site-specific
habitats that require management planning and tend
to be highly accessible for community involvement.
The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated
Management (ESSIM) area comprises a
Large Ocean Management Area (LOMA)
based on mixture of ecological, political
and ocean use parameters. This can be
adapted to address management
requirements in adjacent areas… The
future Plan needs to provide a
comprehensive framework for multiple
ocean use planning in the context of
ecosystem-based management. The
ecosystem-based management will be
applied at three main geographic scales,
Large Ocean Management (LOMA),
Ocean Management Areas (OMA), and
Sub-OMAs/Coastal Management Areas
(estuarine/inshore).
- Carol Anne Rose, DFO Maritimes
First Nations traditional territories were also
suggested as logical planning boundaries, larger
than specific habitats yet generally consistent with
ecosystem boundaries. Participants stressed the
importance of recognizing ecosystem boundaries in
establishing planning scales. To date, they
suggested, management in the coastal zone has
designed programs and plans along provincial and
federal agency lines as opposed to reflecting
ecosystem and community considerations.
Consistent with this approach a federal
representative reported that the initial
stage of the Central Coast IM plan will
involve an ecosystem boundary overview,
ranging from the large scale ocean level
to the small scale community level, and
will work to engage decision making at
the community level throughout this
process.
- Brenda Bauer, DFO
The coast has been divided into marine
eco-units, based on the distribution of
biological resources, and existing use and
patterns. There are 15 planning units
with rare and unique areas identified.
- Rob Paynter on Quatsino Sound,
MSRM
Traditional territories are also consistent with the
scale of sub-provincial region, which appears to be
an effective “middle ground” for both community and
senior government levels. Andrew Day of WCVI
Aquatic Management Board discussed the benefits
of planning at this regional scale:
… we felt that the advantages of managing at that
scale were outweighing the potential dilemmas. We
could develop mechanisms that kept money within
the region, and that those might be more effective
than the current system where money flows out of
the region, is given to a big administrative process
and then gets given back to the region in the form of
a program that does not seem to ever really work for
people.
The policy function is best done at the regional level
… because you are dealing with resources that span
the whole area, like fisheries. Larger external
governments can’t deal with that many small
groups- it is just unworkable, and from the regional
area you have more power when you have a larger
-19-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
base. We felt that policy was best done at the regional level, since it allowed those that
are into talking more opportunity to engage in decision making that otherwise happens in
Ottawa or Victoria.
At the same time it was pointed out that good coastal plans must encompass the causes or
source of the problems being addressed, not simply the symptoms. Problems are often caused
at larger cross-boundary and cross-jurisdictional scales (e.g. navigation and communications,
waste disposal and pollution).
Although coastal management is usually area-based, national and international legal and
planning frameworks are valuable to address broader issues with local area implications.
Federal governments need to provide a framework that includes administrative measures to
enable effective implementation and coordination at all levels of government. National
programs can also provide funding for planning efforts at various scales, often from existing
sectoral budgets and investment plans (FAO 1998).
Area boundaries must be both pragmatic and flexible. The factors of influence include
biophysical, economic, social, jurisdictional and/or organizational features of an area along with
the issues being addressed. These factors may, and often do, change over time. Speaker Jesse
Davies provided an illustration:
There was a considerable amount of mapping done to show the landowners what 30
metres from the water line means for their particular property. But all this will change
with time, especially with coastal wetlands, as sea level rises and the coastal wetlands
migrate inland…
Legal marine boundary issues must also be considered and are highly complex. This complexity
lies in such things as the ‘real’ definitions of High and Low Tidal boundaries and upland
ownership issues; jurisdictional issues relating to seabed versus water column versus sea
surface; combined ‘natural’ boundaries as defined by physical oceanographic processes. Sam
Nganga, presenter from the University of New Brunswick, suggests that coastal zone planning
cannot be achieved using a two-dimensional approach but instead coastal areas must be
defined and described in three-dimensional terms that take into account the water column
(depth), for example, and more realistically represent the coastal world and various (often
competitive) interests in the use of coastal zone resources.
While ecosystem considerations are important in establishing planning boundaries so too are
cultural ones, and the history (or lack of it) of people’s relationships within an area. Ed Newman
of the Heiltsuk First Nation illustrated the human impact of boundary setting:
I live in the mid-coast and am a Heiltsuk people… No one paid much attention to the
mid-coast, and we like being isolated and not bothered. That was until a government
decided to change a break down of the coast and we became part of the Cariboo (ed.
Under CCLRMP). We did not understand how anyone would mix cowboys with coastal
people.
The principle of integration applies to the people involved, the scales of concern and the issues
to be addressed. Issues requiring coastal management and planning cut across jurisdictions,
occur at widely different scales, and involve a diversity of stakeholders. No single plan can be
expected to cope with all coastal issues, but management practices and plans can be
substantially improved by mixing integrated coastal plans at different scales. Both the national
-20-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
and the local scales are important, along with international and the regional/ sub-national scale.
All must be addressed and coordinated, through what are often termed “nested systems.”
Speakers suggested that COS provides a framework for this kind of multi-level planning,
although concerns were expressed by one local resident that “the Central Coast is now almost
the whole coast”. DFO representative Brenda Bauer responded that in the Central Coast they
are working to identify sub-units, smaller scale planning areas called Coastal Management
Areas (CMAs) for the Central Coast, which are likely to be based in some cases, such as Rivers
and Smiths Inlets, on First Nations territories. The Quatsino Sound CMA is an example. A
similar model is being applied on the east coast, with the eastern Scotian Shelf and the Bras
d’Or Lakes watershed within that provided as an example.
Theme/Lesson #5: Set realistic timelines
The issue of scale can be conceptualized in terms of time as well as space. Conference
participants stressed that coastal planning must be viewed as a long-term process. The current
provincial mandate to complete plans within one year was described by one speaker as “naïve
and self-defeating timelines that invite failure”. Ideally, all stakeholders, including all levels of
government, would work together on a plan. “This may be a slow process but it can lead to
really good solutions”.
The goal is to create concrete
economic plans, with the planning
focusing on job diversification. The
planning process is supposed to be
a short process, being consultative
not consensus driven… we do not
want this just to be a process. We
want it to deliver results.
- Rob Paynter, MSRM
Cynicism about the 15-month
deadline is already undermining
confidence in the process. … a
realistic timeline would be perceived
as an honest admission that these
things do take time to do well… It
takes ages for programs to mature,
communities to learn, and
bureaucracies to change. We are
talking dinosaur timelines - not
piecemeal funding for one to five
years.
- Catherine Rigg, SFU
Everyone is in a hurry, three years
for the Coast Information Team for
example. What’s the rush?
- Participant
People are tired of the long process.
You have to start somewhere.
- Participant
At the same time, there was recognition that the public,
community volunteers and government have little
patience for long processes with no action and few shortterm outcomes. Further, long-term processes present
particular challenges associated with funding and
changing political leadership. A commitment to long
term funding is needed to support long term processes.
Finally, the time required is related to the size and
complexity of the area in question. One international
expert argued that three years was ample time for
planning.
The need for both short-term outcomes and long-term
planning must be reconciled. Pilot activities and small
actions along the way were recommended as ways to
sustain the process. “Pick something small that fits into
the larger vision”.
Although mixed feelings were expressed about the
CCLRMP process, it is an example of multiple spatial
and temporal scales. Now in its ninth year of planning for
nearly six million hectares of land and nearshore waters,
the process identified the need for smaller-scale
ecosystem level planning, both terrestrial and coastal, to
be undertaken with much shorter timeframes. Planning
for one of the recommended smaller-scale units,
Quatsino Sound, was completed in approximately 18
months. An important distinction is that the latter process
was based on consultation versus consensus.
-21-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Anticipated timelines for the Central Coast LOMA IM process were not discussed. However,
Atlantic Region Fisheries and Oceans representative Carole Anne Rose described the Eastern
Scotian Shelf Ocean Management Plan as ‘a multi-year strategy plan for the integrated
management of all policies, programs, plans, measures and activities in or affecting the Eastern
Scotian Shelf Large Ocean Management Area’.
The West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board was established after a
process of several years to develop a mandate and terms of reference, bring governments and
stakeholders together through a process of dialogue to present and discuss issues, and to
educate one another about each party’s expectations.
Even in the examples of shorter-term provincially led planning processes it is anticipated that
the Plan will be reviewed and adapted over time, pointing out the importance of an “alive and
responsive” coastal plan – lesson #6.
Theme/Lesson #6: Practice adaptive management - think ahead, apply precaution but learn-bydoing
Achieving short-term objectives while planning for the long-term is the essence of adaptive
management. Participants emphasized the importance of identifying an issue that could be
implemented in the shortterm while working toward longer-term goals, and then of celebrating
small accomplishments along the way.
It is important to begin with a simple, manageable
process. “A big part of the challenge will be getting
community support and buy-in—this can only be
achieved by incremental successes that will slowly
overcome inertia and build support”.
Also critical is the ability to learn from your
experiences. “All coastal plans should be considered
experimental and living. The focus should be on
encouraging and accommodating learning
communities and responsive agencies. An
experimental approach reinforces that management
decisions must often be made in the face of
considerable uncertainty”.
The case of Ecuador was given as an example where
a learning approach was pursued, incrementally
developing and testing different approaches to improve
how priority coastal resource management issues are
dealt with. This kind of flexible coastal plan
encourages creative and innovative approaches.
The challenge is we need to plan in an
environment of uncertainty. We need
to plan in a way that brings in
uncertainty to make good decisions e.g.- use of the precautionary principle.
Planning when we have uncertainty is
a reality. You do not have to get hung
up on the uncertainty, but be aware it
is part of the picture.
- Jesse Davies, UNB
I learned long ago the only bad
decision is no decision at all. We need
to study what we have done wrong.
That can be valuable if we want to look
for answers to carry us forward, not for
purpose of blaming.
- Steve Waugh , Bella Coola
Conservation Society
… the process must be kept simple at
first.
- Jack Mathias, DFO
Adaptive planning does not mean, however, always
Coastal plans require quantitative
reacting to mistakes. Through an ongoing assessment
evidence of their effectiveness.
of conditions and trends, we can learn to foresee
- Participant
problems and opportunities rather than always reacting
to crises. An ongoing, comprehensive program of
monitoring and evaluation is critical, requiring baseline information as a starting point.
-22-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
The establishment of Marine Environmental Quality (MEQ) monitoring programs under the
Oceans Strategy was cited as a step in this direction, although limited in its ability to encompass
social, economic and cultural aspects of coastal well-being. It was pointed out that the
establishment of such monitoring programs is a new process that will itself require significant
learning.
Theme/Lesson #7: Make capacity building an integral part of the planning process
Integrated coastal planning requires individual and organization learning as well as the
establishment of new institutions and relationships (as previously discussed). Capacity building
is needed at all levels in order to achieve these goals. Capacity building involves the transfer of
knowledge and experience relevant to coastal planning and management among organizations
and individuals. Several suggestions were made for how this could be done, including the
creation of regional and national networks among communities and organizations involved in
coastal planning, conservation and resource management initiatives.
Public outreach and school programs were also discussed as important methods for building
capacity, interest and willingness among the general public to participate in planning processes.
Art shows were suggested along with the example of World Wildlife Fund’s oceans
education curriculum, being delivered on BC’s north coast in partnership with DFO. Additional
public awareness programs include speakers’
Communities must develop the skills and an
series, open houses, bulletins, targeted
effective voice to ensure that they receive the
communications and stewardship programs; for
benefits from the natural resources around
example, annual beach cleanups, the Haida
them. Strong regional and national networks
are essential tools needed to accomplish this
Gwaii abalone stewards, ‘adopt a beach’ program
work.
for field monitoring, and streamkeepers and
- Kathy Campbell, Discovery Coast
reefkeepers programs. Workshops and open
Greenways Land Trust
dialogue sessions were also recommended.
Once again lack of ongoing funding to support
… we went in wondering how we were going
these initiatives was raised as a barrier: “We
to teach this to the community. We were
need to find a way to make these programs selfsurprised to find out that the women’s groups
sustaining.”
were already teaching those from the other
villages about water conservation, and
sharing the things that they had learned in
workshops. They already understood the
idea of capacity building.
- Jessie Davies, University of New
Brunswick
It is a three-year hands on program. The first
year is the introduction to the intertidal, year
2 is ocean habitats and year 3 is special
places and marine conservation... We are
developing partnerships with Parks Canada,
local NGOs and the Haida Nation, with the
hopes of expansion of single lessons to high
school classes...
- Michele Patterson, WWF
Several examples demonstrated the valuable role
universities can play in capacity building, but also
as financial partners and political extension. The
SeaGrant program in the U.S., the Turning the
Tide project with St. Mary’s University and Nova
Scotia community groups, and the partnership
between ICNRC and Simon Fraser University
that led to the coastal planning workshop are
illustrative. In Fiji the University of the South
Pacific has helped to establish a provincial
working group on coastal management, offered
training and planning workshops for a local
working group in a pilot area, and assisted with
water quality research and the development and
translation of awareness material.
-23-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Specific training programs that allow for community participation in the collection and analysis of
coastal information were suggested. Chief Tom Nelson described, for example, interview
training conducted with members of the Quatsino First Nation.
The Unama’ki Institute of Natural
Resources (UINR), a new research and
management facility located within the
community of Eskasoni in theBras d’or Lakes
region of Nova Scotia, was provided as yet
another example of First Nations working to
build the capacity to undertake planning and
management within their territories with
support from both government and
universities, particularly University College of
Cape Breton.
Turning the Tide encourages communitybased management by providing much
needed academic, financial,
organizational and moral support to
communities wishing to develop the
required capacity and expertise, and to
develop mechanisms for working
together .
- Tony Charles
Theme/Lesson #8: Integrate local and scientific knowledge, integrate existing information and
strive to fill knowledge gaps
Vast areas of the BC Central Coast lack good baseline inventories of marine and nearshore
resources; often the only information available comes from local residents’ knowledge of the
area. The issue of how to integrate “unverified” (not scientifically defensible) information into
coastal management datasets has arisen many times. Given the large area, it is highly unlikely
that good “scientific” information can be gathered over the short term – it would simply be too
expensive. In the meantime, the only sources of information available are often from Local
Knowledge of the area.
“Local Knowledge” can be separated into “Traditional Knowledge” (TK) provided by First
Nations residents (especially the elders), and
“Local Knowledge” (LK) provided by long-term
non-First Nations people. Both of these
information sources must be included in coastal
resource decision-making processes. One
researcher gave an example of how he would
have saved “time, money and relationships” by
asking the locals about his research topic before
beginning fieldwork.
Current provincial and federal government
planning processes (and related GIS products)
tend to rely on “verified information” – often this information has come through a process of
government contractors interviewing local, knowledgeable residents; in fact, a translation of
Local Knowledge into conventional frameworks. Tools for incorporating this valuable knowledge
source must be developed and nurtured.
Participants share knowledge and concerns
The first step is to pull together all available information from local, provincial and ederal data
warehouses. The second step is to verify those data and identify gaps in coverage of the area.
The third step is to find ways to fill those information gaps. Traditional and Local Knowledge can
-24-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
help to achieve this. Information gathered should
encompass environmental, social, cultural and
economic aspects of a region.
A number of tools for integrating Traditional and
Local Knowledge were demonstrated and
discussed, including log books, oral history and
both “low tech” (e.g. pen and paper) and “high
tech” mapping alternatives (e.g. GIS, internetbased applications such as Community Mapping
Network web mapping tools).
A major issue lies in the incorporation and
integration of Local and Traditional
Knowledge in IM, and in gaining a better
understanding of First Nations objectives.
Better partnerships with communities
have to be established- we need to use
community knowledge to help fill
information gaps. The DFO Integrated
Management Committee is working on
this.
- Brenda Bauer, DFO
Maps are particularly valuable for capturing both
resource information and community’s “sense of place.” They can include images and stories
and engage all ages, from elders to children. While tools such as web-based mapping are
powerful, participants cautioned that not all communities have access at this time to the
expertise, equipment or communications infrastructure to use them effectively. Maps can be
presented effectively together in the form of watershed or bioregional atlases. (See
proceedings from Building Capacity for Decision Making: Community Natural Resource
Cataloguing Workshops http://www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/linking/reports.htm)
Sound planning and policies require sound information; “a good coastal plan focuses on quality
of information, not quantity”. There is a significant danger in developing plans based on too little
or poor information. Coastal plans must remain flexible and be receptive to new information as
it becomes available. Funds must be applied and capacity developed to incorporate Local and
Traditional Knowledge into the process. Examples were given from the east coast where the oil
and gas industry contributes to biological and ecological monitoring costs.
For the BC Central Coast the data that we do have are sparse. There is only a selection of
species for which data are available, mostly commercial species (harvest data) that are mapped
for the fishing industry. There are few sets of data that show change over time. This is where
local and First Nations (TK) data is so valuable.
Integration of local, academic and government information and knowledge was a major theme
of the Coastal Resources Mapping Workshop held on April 2, 2003 as a “lead in” to the main
Coastal Planning Conference. The workshop examined different approaches to communitybased resource mapping along with other ways to better share coastal resources information
using common tools.
Recap of Questions and Issues Arising from the April 2nd Mapping Workshop
How do we incorporate local knowledge (TEK) into conventional datasets and
mapping? (May have to be a separate ‘layer’ but very important)
How (where) can communities access resources to ensure incorporation of TEK?
How can funding be leveraged to gather additional coastal resource information in
those areas where the data are sparse or non-existent?
How can existing coastal resource information (including TEK) be better
incorporated (used) in coastal management decision-making (including industrial
development and fisheries)?
How can the various (sometimes disparate) information systems be integrated for
more efficient use by planners and communities? How can the integrated
information be disseminated (and continuously up-dated)?
-25-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
Communities (especially First Nations) need assurance that their knowledge of coastal
resources is being incorporated into IM (Coastal Planning) processes. Many examples were
provided of LK and TK being overlooked or ignored in coastal planning/decision-making
processes and of the advantages of its incorporation. Communities also need improved access
to electronic datasets from government agencies if information is to be shared.
Theme/Lesson #9: Recognize and incorporate multiple values, multiple uses
Successful coastal planning and management takes
into account multiple values and uses. It represents
an integrated, balanced approach and recognizes
the interconnections between society, economy,
culture and ecology, taking each into account. It
recognizes that “marine and terrestrial systems are
inextricably linked in ecosystem processes, the life
cycles of species, and the livelihoods and identity of
coastal communities.” We cannot manage terrestrial
systems if we don’t know what is happening in
adjacent marine habitats, and vice versa.
The importance of personal and cultural values
associated with the ocean was discussed, along
with the values associated with long-term thinking
and ecosystem health, the need for short-term
economic gain (jobs, income), and both individual
and community benefits, all of which must be
reconciled within a coastal plan. Economic values
and interests will include many different sectors. A
provincial representative suggested that the first
step in any process should be to talk with local
communities and First Nations to determine what
the various values in a region are. Issues of social
equity that should be incorporated into coastal
planning were also raised. These include
maximizing local benefits from economic activity
and resource extraction, the inability of new
fishermen or crewmembers to buy a fishing license
due to inflated costs, and issues of intergenerational
inequity.
The ultimate goal is not a healthy ocean, but
rather a healthy community. One measure of
this is by the number of children in school.
We need to preserve our culture, we need a
healthy economy and this will be our base.
From this we can build a healthy ocean and
healthy land base … This is not just conflict
resolution, but integration of conservation
values, both economic and social.
– Jennifer Lash, Living Oceans Society
You cannot expect a crewmember to buy a
license. People have new boats, which
require huge payments. The 100-mile
coastline will now go to those who are
interested in buying the licenses for the big
dollars. Places like funeral homes and
grocery stores own licenses.
- Wayne Spinney, Lobster Fisherman, Bay
of Fundy
… the shift in thinking is not to try and adapt
to one sector or one group’s interest, but to
try and maximize benefits to the community
as a whole, which is a shift from the sectoral,
last man standing type of approach. This is
what ecosystem management meant to us.
With this comes the concept of balance and
mutual benefits.
- Andrew Day, WCVIAMB
Forestry activity and how it affected
spawning beds - this was recognized by the
First Nations people. We see the
connections that the different processes
have.
- Hereditary Chief Simon Lucas, Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council
The CCLRMP was presented by one speaker as a
plan that took intergenerational equity into account
by leaving option areas, with activities to be decided
on in the future. Protection of the option for people
to settle in remote areas was also presented as important, with all of the services required such
as transportation, commercial and social services.
-26-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
The ecosystem overview is a first-step in ocean
planning. You have to be able to determine what
type of protection or management may be
required... MPAs will not be successful unless
we are managing all oceans sustainably…There
are many different tools for protecting the marine
environment, with MPAs being just one.
- Mary Jean Comfort, DFO, Ottawa
The principles for ecosystem management have
a biocentric view with humans embedded in
nature. Maintenance of ecological integrity along
with adaptive management using the
precautionary principle and are some key
principles outlined in the ecosystem
management.
- Tom Tomascik, Parks Canada, Pacific
The Inuvialuit set aside three areas for marine
protection…. In 1985, in the town of
Tuktayaktuk, there were 600 helicopter flights
over 10 days over the whaling areas (related to
oil and gas development). This caused a great
disturbance to the whales. The belugas need
protection… There needs to be work done on the
arctic belugas to determine the level of
contamination, and work done with China and
Russia on the concentration levels.
- Jack Mathias, DFO, Winnipeg
GPI Atlantics, an NGO developing measures
of well-being, was presented as a model of an
integrated approach (www.gpiatlantic.org).
This monitoring tool uses multiple categories
of indicators, such as ecological,
socioeconomic, community and institutional
well-being.
Theme/Lesson # 10: Meeting conservation
objectives
Any plan, whether it is terrestrial or marine,
must ensure that ecosystem health and
integrity is preserved (and restored where
necessary). The primary goals of a good
coastal plan should include: 1) clean water
and air; 2) conservation of habitat (especially
unique habitat types); 3) maintenance of
biological diversity; and 4) promotion of a
conservation economy with sustainability as
the primary focus.
The cumulative effects of all uses must be
considered as a whole when forecasting or
determining impacts on coastal resources.
This may require a more global view than we
currently employ – small area-based plans
need to be considered in the context of the
larger ecosystem. The preservation of Marine Environmental Quality (MEQ), it was suggested,
must be the over-arching principle – this will require continuous monitoring of water quality,
species abundance and diversity, and adjustment of plans (including exploitation and
development) to ensure that MEQ goals are met.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are one tool that can be used to ensure protection of
representative marine ecosystems. Other tools discussed included environmental guidelines
for industry (e.g. for tourism development), ecosystem overview studies and collaborative
work with other nations on cross-boundary issues.
Speakers cited evidence of the effectiveness of MPAs in contributing to the recovery of
marine species, particularly when MPAs are designated as “no-take” zones protected from
fishing and all other extractive, polluting or habitat damaging activities. An additional
condition is that MPAs exist within an overall framework of sustainable, ecosystem-based
oceans and coastal management.
“MPAs help to protect biodiversity, biomass and population structure of commercial
species, protect and enhance productivity, and protect essential life stages of
commercial and non-commercial species. The benefits on target species include
increased average individual size and age, enhanced recruitment inside and outside
MPAs, maintenance of genetic diversity, and enhanced fishery yields in adjacent
fishing grounds”.
- Tom Tomascik, Parks Canada
-27-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
A consensus statement issued by 161 leading marine scientists at the February 2001
AAAS meeting in San Francisco stated that marine reserves are a highly effective
but under-appreciated and under-utilized tool that can help alleviate the declining
state of the oceans and collapse of fisheries.
- Natalie Ban, CPAWS
Currently less than 1% of BC’s marine waters have some degree of protection. Worldwide
less than 0.5% of the marine area is designated as MPA. Concerns were expressed about
the time required for MPA designation in Canada, a multi-phase process that involves:
identifying candidate MPAs, assessment, public input and selection, regulation drafting,
dialogue and approval within the relevant ministry, and then by Cabinet.
The question of “where to put MPAs?” remains an issue. Much of our knowledge of marine
resources comes from a large dataset that describes where things are exploited. Setting
traditional harvest areas aside as MPAs might, in some cases, only serve to limit economic
opportunity or subsistence fisheries. The “bottleneck” to the overall health/productivity of a
given species (or group of species) might be occurring in some totally different area or lifestage of those species. Improved knowledge of the life histories of migratory species is
essential for planning MPA locations and extent.
Participants discussed the need to identify significant and representative marine features,
such as major community types (i.e. estuaries, kelp beds), habitats (i.e. reefs, seamounts,
tidal passages), processes (i.e. upwellings, plums, gyres), and special biogenic communities
such as corals and sponge reefs. Dr. Bill Ballantine’s (University of Auckland, New Zealand)
“3 Rs were discussed:” Representation, Replication, and Rarity.
Good science
(including such
things as GIS
modeling of likely
significant marine
ecosystems; e.g.
Living Oceans reef
modeling) can be a
great help to
determining
potential MPA
locations.
However, once
again, coastal
communities (and
Local Knowledge)
must be involved in
the selection of the
most appropriate
areas for marine
protection if they
are in the end to
meet their
objectives.
Figure 4. The existing candidate areas for conservation identified by the federal government,
2
totaling 20,618 km (map courtesy WWF).
-28-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
Participants pointed out that coastal zone protection measures must include watersheds as
well as marine areas, and that the success of MPAs will in part depend on upland
influences.
Within Canada there is a network of marine protected areas. Through
Environment Canada there are National Wildlife and Marine Areas and Migratory
Bird Sanctuaries. Through Parks Canada you have National Parks and National
Marine Conservation Areas and through Fisheries and Oceans you have Marine
Protected Areas. Through this network there are connections of the federal
agencies with their provincial counterparts. Levels of protection in terms of
marine resources within these areas are almost nothing. Fishing is allowed
everywhere because the province does not have authority…
– Tom Tomascik, Parks Canada, Pacific
Many examples of local involvement in the development of conservation plans, including
MPAs, from around the world were presented. In the Canadian Arctic MPAs have been set
up to protect the migration (and sustainable hunting) of Beluga whales. Communities and
government worked together on this initiative. In New Brunswick it took the localized
impact of storm surges on coastal shorelines and coastal community economies to
coordinate the efforts of government(s) and local communities in developing coastal
protection plans.
In Mexico, the development of major tourism in the north (around Cancun) led to planning
for a rather different environment of the southern coast. The local fishing cooperative
“Andres Quintana Roo” wrote a letter to the Governor of Quintana Roo in 1994 requesting
that its nearshore waters and coral reef be designated as a Marine Protected Area. The
initiative was developed to provide opportunities for low impact, social friendly tourism
development, with economic benefits to the community. The village, community and NGO
leaders are involved in the process of preparing an environmental master plan for the coast.
In Ecuador, after the concern over the decline in shrimp production in 1983, shrimp
mariculture expanded rapidly throughout coastal estuaries in the late 1980s, which in turn
added to the decline in mangrove forest area and habitat. So far the coastal management
initiative in Ecuador has gained the support of hundreds of local user groups, consolidated
the administrative operations, and has been awarded a major international loan, (all the
while surviving five Presidents). There are many other community management success
stories, including implementation of sanitation projects and a national policy reform. There
is a strategic development proposal in place for this coast with coast-wide diagnoses of
hazards and coastal features. A major milestone was that the sale of the coastal zone for
shrimp farms has been declared unconstitutional.
These international examples show us that community consultation, combined with good
science, government commitment and flexible decision-making, is the foundation of sound
coastal planning that meets conservation objectives.
What Next? The Way Forward
After three days of discussions there was hope in the room that together coastal residents,
governments and others could work toward a model of coastal management in BC that is
more responsive to community and ecosystem needs. Positive stories had been told from
across Canada and the globe. Important lessons had been heard and recorded and a
sharing of perspectives had taken place among representatives of coastal communities,
First Nations, industry, senior governments, NGOs, and academia.
-29-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
“This is the land of the Great Bear Rainforest, a region named after charismatic megafauna. But
to name a region after megafauna suggests that is all it has, but there is much more…
Already 82% of the logged area has surpassed sustainable long-term harvest levels. The local
pulp mills have closed. There are 1800 loggers employed, but only 7% live in the Central Coast
…”
- Alex Clapp, Simon Fraser University
After the Central Coast Great Bear Rainforest agreement was signed there was a lot of angry talk
in town.
- Michele Patterson, WWF North Coast
I am 77 years old, and so many times we have sat down to make management plans… Today in
the Heiltsuk territory we have serious social problems because of these failed management plans.
We are tired of being victims of the kind of plans that you are developing. We do not want to be to
be victims anymore. We want to be included, meaningfully included in the planning, we want the
chance to shape our future.
- Hereditary Chief Ed Newman, Heiltsuk First Nation
We have done our best to record the outcomes of this important event with the hope that it
will contribute to improved oceans and coastal management in BC, and in Canada.
But in the end we must return to the community and
the region where the workshop was held, and for
whom it was held. The north island/central coast region
of BC faces many serious challenges, from population
loss and unemployment, to social problems, conflict,
cultural heritage loss, resource depletion and habitat
degradation. Several government-led processes are
underway to plan for the future of this area.
The true test of the utility of these three days of
dialogue will be whether improvements occur in these
planning processes, and ultimately in the sustainability
of the communities and ecosystems of the Central
Coast. The Central Coast region, home of 23 First
Nations, more than 35 small communities, the orca,
the grizzly, the valued Pacific salmon, nearly 200 other
marine fish species, loggers, fishermen, fish farmers,
store owners, tour operators and many other residents,
is a place people care deeply about and want to see
protected. Coastal planning must reflect the urgency of
the need for change, the complexity of the region and
the heartfelt community commitment to this place.
We have some exciting opportunities in
the North Island, and we have creative
people who are willing to work with
academic and government agencies to
move ahead in a responsible way. BS
- Bill Shephard, Regional District of
Mount Waddington
I wanted to thank you and SFU Centre
for Coastal Studies for supporting the
meeting in Alert Bay. This meeting
gave coastal community mappers a
rare chance to get together and to hear
the voice of the First Nations people...
We do have a lot of work to do now,
and the Alert Bay meeting pointed the
direction that we should be going in.
- Kathy Campbell, Campbell River
I am hoping that there is hope to be had.
I have heard a lot of good things over the
last few days, positive things about
community-based management. I hope
to be able to organize the fishermen
when I get home. This is our life. This is
our community.
- Wayne Spinney, Lobster Fisherman,
Bay of Fundy
Several suggestions and commitments were heard for
moving forward. A Fisheries and Oceans
representative stated that “different teams will be
established, working on intergovernmental
cooperation, and working to engage interested parties”. Mount Waddington Regional District
Chair Bill Shephard suggested that a series of development plans could be prepared, in
-30-
Alert Bay, British Columbia, April 2003
consultation with the North Island/ Mainland community, in cooperation with the First Nations
community.
First Nations leaders expressed their determination to engage in planning for their own
futures, and to presenting their plans to others who wish to operate within their territories.
Representatives of fishing, environmental and community organizations spoke of heading
home to apply lessons learned with renewed energy to their important work. We hope that
in some small way this workshop record will assist each of these individuals in their task to
extend and continue the dialogue.
I
st
y-
The organizers are committed to a continuing process of information sharing and dialogue
on issues affecting coastal communities, ecosystems and their vulnerabilities Canada wide.
A subsequent workshop was held in Change Islands, NL (August 23-25, 2003) examining
the vulnerabilities in coastal communities. Proceedings from this event can be found in Part
II of this document.
y of
Alert Bay, British Columbia
References
Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management – Concepts and
Practice. Ed. Island Press.
Hildebrand L.P. 1989. Canada’s experience with Coastal Zone Management. Publ. Oceans Institute
of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Huggett, D. 2003. The role of federal government intervention in coastal zone planning and
management. Coastal Policy Officer, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
Bedfordshire. Web.
Kay, R. and J. Alder. 1999. Coastal Planning and Management. Routledge.
Scialabba, N. (ed.). 1998. Integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
FAO Guidelines. Environment and Natural Resources Service, FAO, Rome. 256 p.
-31-
Report from Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC’s Central Coast
-32-