C O N V E N E R S R E P O RT FROM

The members of the Steering Committee would like to express their gratitude to people and organisations who provided valuable support over the course of this project.
First, members of the Advisory Committee are acknowledged for their advice, guidance, and time committed.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dr. Richard Haedrich, Professor, Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and; Former Co-Chair, Marine
Fishes, Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
Dr. Peter Harrison, Senior Research Fellow, Oceans, National Research Council of Canada
Dr. Peter Heffernan, Chief Executive, Marine Institute of Ireland
Dr. Marc Hershman, Professor, School of Marine Affairs, Adjunct Professor, School of Law, University of
Washington; and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
Dr. Richard Kenchington, Chair, International Coral Reef Action Network; Professor, Centre for Maritime Policy,
University of Wollongong, Australia and; Principal, RAC Marine Pty Ltd.
Dr. Daniel Pauly, Director, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia and Pew Fellow in Marine
Conservation
Second, a heartfelt thank you is extended to all of the participants from the Changing Currents Dialogue who volunteered their time, devoted their energy and shared their ideas for moving the ocean agenda forward. (See page 32 for list of participants.)
Third, a special thank you to the Dialogue Facilitator, Glenn Sigurdson, Fellow and Research Associate, Morris J.
Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Simon Fraser University and Principal, CSE Group who shepherded us through the process and kept us on task on-site and during conceptualisation of the project.
Fourth, the authors of this report wish to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Sue Nichols, Kelly Vodden, and Laurie
Wood who contributed valuable suggestions and editorial comments for improvements to the document and to
Jennifer Penikett and Anthea Lee for design and formatting.
Finally, the financial sponsors of the project are gratefully acknowledged; without their support none of this would have been possible.
STEERING COMMITTEE
Dr. Jackie Alder, Research Associate, Coastal Zone Management, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia
Dr. Leah Bendell-Young, Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University
Dr. Patricia Gallaugher, Director, Centre for Coastal Studies and Continuing Studies in Science, Simon Fraser
University
Dr. Sylvie Guénette, Research Associate, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia
1

2
Program Support:
Alcan
Government of Canada
Fisheries and Oceans
Parks
Western Economic Diversification
Linking Science and Local Knowledge node, Ocean Management Research Network
Oak Foundation
Province of British Columbia
BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
BC Offshore Oil & Gas Team
Simon Fraser University
Centre for Dialogue
Deans of Arts and Social Sciences, Continuing Studies, and Science
Ting Endowment - Education for Public Responsibility
President’s Office
Sustainable Shellfish Aquaculture Initiative (SSAI)
TeeKay Shipping
University of Victoria
Faculty of Science
Vice-President Research
Vancouver Aquarium & Marine Sciences Centre
Travel and/or Accommodation Support:
Alcan
Belgian Federal Science Policy Office
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America
COMPASS, The Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea
Delta Vancouver Suites
Government of Canada
Fisheries and Oceans
Natural Resources Canada
Parks
Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery
Land and Ocean Interaction in the Coastal Zone
Marine Institute of Ireland
Maritime Institute of Ghent University
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dean of Science
Newfoundland Fisheries and Aquaculture
Ocean Management Research Network
Linking Science and Local Knowledge node
Secretariat
Province of British Columbia
BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
BC Offshore Oil & Gas Team
Sierra Club of British Columbia
Simon Fraser University, International
Shell Canada
University of Victoria
West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board

Preface
Key Issues
Community Perspective
Institutional (government organisations) Perspective
Science Perspective
Industry Perspective
Civil Society Perspective
Summary Statement from Changing Currents Dialogue
Blueprint for Action
List of Participants
24
29
30
32
4
5
6
9
16
21
3

4
The goal of Changing Currents: Charting a
Course of Action for the Future of Oceans
Dialogue was to define a course of action for the future sustainability of oceans. To achieve this, a highly focused dialogue among invited participants who represented international ocean experts, government managers and policy makers, First Nations, ocean industry, NGOs and coastal communities was held at the Morris J. Wosk
Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser
University in Vancouver, British Columbia,
February 23-26, 2005. To encourage mentorship and benefit from the exchange of knowledge and ideas, participants also represented a cross-section of senior, midcareer and early career professionals from all sectors. (See list of participants, page 32.)
In addition to these questions, other questions were posed that were specific to the lenses of community, institution, science, industry and civil society. These questions appear at the beginning of each section.
The key points raised during the dialogue are reflected in the summary that follows.
References to specific case studies are provided (more detailed information about these presentations is available on the web site listed below) and quotations from participants are included but not attributed to individuals, reflecting the discussion of the group as a whole. At the conclusion of the dialogue participants identified an action plan which is reflected in the
Summary Statement from the Changing
Currents dialogue and the Blueprint for
Action at the end of this document.
The catalysts for the dialogue included several key presentations and case studies that identified challenges and demonstrated how positive change could occur.
Discussions examined ocean issues through the lenses of community, institution
(governmental organisations), science, industry and civil society. Throughout the meeting the following questions were presented to guide the dialogue:
For more detailed information on this dialogue (on-site program, participant biosketches, presentations, crib notes on
and
and lists of resistors and enablers identified in these documents), visit our website: http://www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/ changingcurrents.htm.

Urgent action is needed to protect the future of marine ecosystems and biodiversity globally.
Policies and actions must address not only sustainability of current and future human activities but also ecosystem restoration.
Long-term vision is needed to move beyond the political horizon.
Institutional failure prevails at all levels globally.
There is ineffective incorporation of science into resource management decisions.
Adaptive, integrated management (vertical and horizontal) is necessary.
Set defendable targets, and put in place measurement and publicly accessible reporting procedures.
Transparency and communication is fundamental at all levels.
Communicate ocean science clearly to the broader public.
Look for solutions and actions at a local scale.
Build connections between local levels and broader scales reflective of the scales of ecosystem function and human activity/impact.
An engaged civil society is the most powerful tool to evoke change.
Start small and build a larger constituency.
Broadcast success stories.
We have a responsibility to future generations.
5

6
Who are the key players in the community who can facilitate change? How do we create a pool of these people? And how do we maintain their involvement given the tasks and frustrations?
What (if any) trade-offs will need to be made to make the necessary changes? Inevitably there will be some short-term economic changes – what trade-offs need to be considered?
What economic incentives at the community level might help to facilitate change?
How can ecosystem based management be incorporated into decision making at the local level (or level of resource use)?
How can community structures be modified/utilized to effect change?
Irrespective of context, capacity is a problem at the community level. It is difficult to maintain community organisations because of lack of funding and the fatigue of the citizens involved. The charisma and dedication of a few individuals championing a cause does not constitute a sustainable community organisation in the long term.
Therefore meaningful consultation and involvement of communities in any decisionmaking process requires appropriate funding to establish local capacity. Even though the cost of establishing local capacity and appropriate institutional and academic support can be enormous, the involvement of all stakeholders and all relevant levels of government increases the chance of success (Results of involving all stakeholders and building capacity, page 7).
The need to meaningfully involve the community 1 in advancing the ocean agenda was reiterated throughout the Changing
Currents dialogue. Communities were seen as agents of change at the local level where behavioural changes can make a significant difference to local resources and further can motivate political leaders to take action in the national and international arenas.
However, during the discussions and through presentations of case studies, it became clear that considerable change is needed before members of the community can be truly effective agents of change.
Communities are often ignored and lack the means to be effective in implementing changes. Even in countries like the
Philippines where communities have become well-organized and have transformed fishing regulations for the better, it was noted that changes in a political or economic context could result in destabilisation of the community and destruction of previous gains.
Also, some activities initially meant to be helpful to communities may turn out to have hindered them; for example, one presentation demonstrated that despite initial good intentions the establishment of
MPAs may turn out to be problematic owing to lack of long-term commitment (Patrick
Christie). In this case the study showed that with an MPA in place and the consequent restrictions on fishing, community members may be displaced by other users, such as tourists. Large amounts of foreign money attracts resorts and large-scale agencies and in the spirit of the ‘greater good’ community management may be replaced with a topdown process. In this way, communities may slowly be excluded and lose access to the territory they originally sought to protect. In situations like this, disengagement and noncompliance will generally follow.
1 The term ‘community’ can be defined by a geographic area, the boundaries of which may be identified in numerous ways, including: political jurisdictions; biophysical characteristics; historical patterns of settlement; land use or affiliation among residents.” (http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/vodden/index.htm) Communities can also be defined as
‘communities of interest’, people with something in common other than their place of residence. While both types of communities are discussed in this report, the focus of this section is on communities within a given geographic area.

Community level decisions are not devoid of conflicts of interest and this can slow or prevent decision making. The use of mediators may be essential in some cases to foster dialogue and community change processes.
Communities can benefit from the inclusion of academics and other scientists who have information and a large-scale perspective while academics and scientists can benefit from the local knowledge of communities. This exchange of information and collaborative approach empowers the community and enables them to better participate in the decision-making process. The challenge is to make sure that the needs of communities are taken into account and integrated at the national and international levels. How this integration might proceed is discussed in the institutional perspective section.
R
ESULTS OF INVOLVING ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND BUILDING CAPACITY
Cases studies from Canada and the Philippines, presented by
Omer Chouinard and Marivic Pajaro respectively, emphasized the importance of community organisation and capacity building. In each case, researchers contributed from studies that helped to define a common understanding of the problem and shape a common goal (decrease of pollution or decrease in overfishing).
The corner stone of successful actions was the involvement of all stakeholders (including schools), social groups and relevant government levels. Also, consultations, discussions, and true concerns for the economic impacts of any corrective actions that may be undertaken, built confidence in the process. Both the involvement and capacity building of the community groups and the support and acknowledgement from governments were deemed important in the process. Finally, successful projects evaluate the results and communicate the findings to the community at large.
Ecosystem-based management in the community
Changing to ecosystem-based management as a way to manage natural resources more effectively has been promoted by many to help reverse the current state of marine ecosystems.
However, ecosystems are often at a larger scale than human communities, making it unlikely that this type of management will be implemented at the community level alone. For example, market forces are now driven at the international level, and the population dynamics of exploitation species happen at a larger scale, not to mention the global scale of climate change. Therefore, input of communities must be part of a structure that encompasses regional, national and international regulatory agencies. Local actions must reach a balance between the needs of the community and large scale economic considerations.
Ecosystem-based management at the community level could be encouraged by consumer campaigns, proper pricing structure for ‘green’ or sustainable products, including good marketing strategies, and even the use of controls such as export taxes on unsustainable products.
Funding for conservation and structural changes could be provided by ocean industries such as fisheries or oil and gas, or taxes on unsustainable products, for example through conservation or sustainability trusts.
Ecosystem-based management has the potential to rebuild and restore marine resources. The question is: Who benefits economically? Participants noted the need to withdraw subsidies that allow unsustainable fisheries to continue.
However, the inherent inertia of the subsidies
7

8
S
WITCHING TO system for wages, fuel or other components of the industry makes it difficult to even consider change, let alone achieve it.
Alternative income activities need to be carefully considered and sometimes aided with transitional investments. Tourism, often cited as a good solution, may bring more problems by redirecting the resources
OTHER FISHING TARGETS
Dr. Mika Diop introduced participants to the strategy adopted to protect selachians on the Banc d’Arguin (Mauritania). Scientists worked with the community and over time, a consensus on the declining state of the resources and the need to act for their own benefit was developed. Fishermen accepted to change fishing gears and target other species. In order to achieve this remarkable transformation the team strategy involved close work with the community involving catch data gathering, dissemination of information and education, support to eliminate nets used for sharks and rays fishing and to provide new nets for other species. towards tourists and dispossessing locals in the process. Also, the tourism industry constitutes a fragile source of income that depends on current trends and political events and it may be impossible to develop a viable industry in a region with a short season. Finally, alternative fishing targets may help relieve the pressure on threatened species although only a few regions of the world still have this choice (see Switching to other fishing targets, left) and there is the potential to repeat the pattern of overfishing the ‘alternate’ species.
The community through collaboration with scientists, industry and government has a key role to play in facilitating change. For these changes to take place, the appropriate institutional structures and processes are needed along with changes in how industry, science and civil society conduct themselves as discussed in other sections of this report.
The community through collaboration with scientists, industry and government has a key role to play in facilitating change. For these changes to take place, the appropriate institutional structures and processes are needed along with changes in how industry, science and civil society conduct themselves as discussed in other sections of this report.

Institutions 2 are agents of change and to be effective they require a number of important conditions to be met that include involving key players within a structure that can facilitate processes, decision-making authority, or some form of accountability.
Key Players
Key players are needed to be a part of the institutions involved in change or to interact with institutions to drive change, specifically charismatic leaders who recognize the problem and take ownership of the problem, and people who understand the key triggers for change and how change occurs, including representatives from: resource users, science, multiple levels of government
(national, provincial/state, First Nations, municipal) including intergovernmental and international, media and education, and local communities and the public at large.
Key players at the political level were seen as important players in moving the ocean agenda forward. However, they need to be energized to take the leadership. One suggestion on how this could be done is: to have a, “ ‘leading knight’ who might be a minister, Prime Minister or other high profile figure, who actually has a substantial interest in the sector and makes substantial changes in the way the sector is being managed. For example, this has been seen in a number of countries where a few leading individuals have made tremendous changes in what people thought were very conservative and immoveable institutions. Finding those people and putting them in the right place is probably one of the most
How can institutions be more responsive to user needs?
Who are institutions accountable to?
How should the role of current management institutions be changed?
How should institutions be managed, monitored and evaluated in meeting user needs for facilitating change?
Should government institutions have a role in the long-term management of oceans and ocean resources?
How do institutions engage communities and what does it take to get institutions to talk to one another?
effective strategies in terms of bringing about institutional change as far as sector management is concerned.”
Within the political arena it is important to differentiate between those in government that are elected and those that work for agencies. They are different sorts of people and accountable to different people.
Politicians are elected and therefore accountable to their constituencies while those that work for the agencies are accountable to the ministers and their administration.
Leadership that arises from the community and industry and is outside of the political arena is also important in motivating political leaders to act and to show leadership when presented with compelling evidence or community demands. Community and industry leaders can also help to build strong constituencies by developing relationships between decision-making institutions and users that are personalized and nurtured over time so that a climate of trust is established. It is also important that leaders
2 In the context of the Changing Currents Dialogue, institutions were generally discussed as formal institutions at the different levels of government, within research or associated with industry. Therefore institutions that relate to community based management and those that build on and use grass roots, social capital and civil society are included in other sections of this report.
9

10
A
USTRALIA
’
S
O know and understand the people or the places that are impacted by the decisions.
When there are multiple sectors, leaders need to ensure that there is equity between stakeholders and the process must be adequately resourced with capacity built among groups to ensure that there is a level playing field. Different users have different capabilities to engage in the process especially in terms of time and understanding of the issues. For all key players there is a need for the right information.
Having appropriate leaders to advocate and lead the process of change is just one important condition of furthering the ocean agenda. Other conditions such as recognizing and supporting their efforts where possible are also needed; otherwise the day-to-day challenges can be so overwhelming that effective leaders resign and finding other leaders to step in can be just as daunting. These leaders also need to have a structure in place that enables them to manage the processes needed for change.
CEANS
P
OLICY was set up as a multi-sectoral whole of government approach to ocean governance. There are a number of ways in which they are looking at policy shift; through the involvement of governments, through the involvement of stakeholders, and through the involvement of science, resulting in three platforms of decision-making. A National Oceans
Advisory Group, made up of representatives of national stakeholder bodies is used to obtain multi-sectoral advice.
There is also a multi-stakeholder science advisory group that is an independent body set up to advise the government at a national level. There is also an Oceans Board of Management composed of senior bureaucrats representing the key government agencies at a national level.
Structure
Structures can be viewed as descriptions of the way people or groups of people with a common agenda can organize themselves.
There has to be some structure in place with formal or informal rules for processes such as decision making and accountability so that key players can be engaged and effective.
Institutional change is necessary to move the ocean agenda forward. Change should start at the government level by instituting mechanisms that secure the collaboration and cooperation at the government and sub-government levels. Europeans have the objective of implementing an ecosystem approach to management - one of the obstacles to this is at the institutional level.
For example, different government agencies manage human activities. Agencies that do not work closely together often do not exchange information; for example, agencies responsible for fisheries management and agencies responsible for nature conservation do not generally work closely together nor do they share information. Sometimes, the policies being adopted by different government departments or different directorates within the EU are directly contradictory. Australia, however, in implementing its Oceans Policy has been able to bring different government departments together to coordinate the management of marine resources (see
Australia’s Ocean Policy, left).
Governments need to work together; this is also one of the guiding principles for implementing an ecosystem approach to management, which is contained in the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(Convention of the Parties [COP] decision
This structure works well for national scale issues. However, the challenge now is to look at the scale of the issues and determine how to implement the Oceans Policy at a scale that is much more relevant to stakeholders.

5/6). We also need to recognize that politicians have to deal with politics and they have to work with public opinion – this limits what they can accomplish; that is, for politicians to implement change there has to be a receptive, or even activated and engaged public (see civil society perspective for more detail, page
24). A number of different types of structures were proposed.
Independent Commissions: seriously. For example, when the US
President’s Commission on Oceans report came out there were some immediate actions. However, the recommendations that are most challenging may never be implemented.
There is power in having an independent commission – the power comes from the fact that they have no power, that is, no self interest. Hence, they tend to be taken
Boards: Having boards with decisionmaking authority is an option to replace decision-making by ministers regarding issues that have local or regional impacts.
This is a safety mechanism to ensure local or regional input. In the case where there are insurmountable disagreements, arbitrators could be introduced to resolve the differences.
Regional Advisory Councils: These councils could create the opportunity for stakeholders to step up to the mark.
Furthermore, a partnership between scientists and stakeholders could produce a powerful synergy (this may be possible in the European context over the next few years).
Federation of Municipalities:
Representatives of local government (for example, town mayors; e.g. Results of involving all stakeholders and building capacity page 7.) was suggested as one way to better engage local government that is often not included in management decisions around marine and coastal areas.
Consultative Forum: A forum that would involve a number of players representing government departments (line agencies), industry, NGOs and other stakeholders would have as its purpose to: provide key players with an opportunity to establish a broad strategy to reframe issues; to create the synergy of collective thinking and a sense of shared ownership; and most importantly, to provide a strategic framework. Such a forum needs to be an independent secretariat with a clear mandate set up at a level above all government institutions (see Wadden Sea below).
W
ADDEN
S
EA
- I
NTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON PROTECTING AN IMPORTANT
ECOSYSTEM
An example of large-scale integrated management in European waters, with an ecosystem approach to conservation and management, is the
Wadden Sea. Lessons learned from this management model could help inform the development of future initiatives.
The Wadden Sea contains Europe’s largest wetland and is an ecosystem of global importance, situated on the coasts of Germany, the
Netherlands and Denmark. The region is cooperatively managed by the three neighbouring countries and is protected by numerous measures.
Parts of it have been variously designated as national parks, nature and wildlife reserves, and planning guidelines have been developed to manage activities in the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea. It has also recently been designated by the IMO as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area covering approximately 15,000 km2.
Gaining political, scientific and community support for this initiative was key to its success. In 2001, a trilateral Wadden Sea Forum was established to bring together all the environmental and economic stakeholders as well as local and regional governments. Its task is to develop improved socio-economic proposals for the regions that are compatible with protection of the Wadden Sea environment.
The Wadden Sea initiative “has an established governance system that sets … clear goals for desired social and environmental qualities, monitors change as it relates to those goals and successfully adapts to both their own experience and ongoing ecosystem change” (Defying
Oceans End)
“ The Wadden Sea now enjoys a level of environmental protection and wise management that is unprecedented throughout Europe and other parts of the world in terms of harmonized international … policies.”
(Jens Enemark)
11

12
External Advisory Councils: One challenge in creating a structure that will move the ocean agenda ahead is the disconnect within governments for ocean and coastal issues, and between fisheries and environment. Managing these within a single structure can cause a conflict of interest, but this may be easier than a ‘shoot out’ between rival departments. Is it possible to achieve the goal of having one uniform
(integrated) system? It may be possible since integrated management does not mean that the departments (line agencies) are disempowered. The issue is frequently put into guidelines within which the departments work. It is a principle of “good fences make good neighbours”, and the structure, particularly around decision principles, can help to do just that. These councils could be helpful to agencies and departments to help guide restructuring as well as in setting strategic directions. There is also power in competition. Agencies operating to improve their own position bureaucratically
(to advance their own self interest and to avoid being weakened from the outside by some new legislation) means that they are trying to respond to the change; for example, competition between regional fisheries management councils that are focussing on implementation of ecosystembased management.
facilitate a diversity of processes that include strategic directions, operations, and decision making at varying scales.
Process
Participants acknowledged that a good process could be a powerful tool. Four topics emerged out of the forum: strategic and operation processes, decision-making processes and the issue of scale.
Strategic Processes
Strategic processes are undertaken to engage key players as well as to provide overarching and long-term processes that can facilitate operational processes, including decision-making. A number of suggestions were made to facilitate strategic processes.
Institutions need to lead (not follow), and develop a vision that extends beyond the local scale and is able to incorporate outside views; governments can also strategically subscribe to, create, or support a larger vision that could come out of strategic assessment or planning. The short-term political horizons (for most, four years) need to be addressed so that long-term changes can be initiated and maintained. An integrated approach is required, one that does not control the process too tightly and opens it up to others.
Structures are not static and will change as issues, societal expectations and government priorities change. Nevertheless the structures that evolve will have to
G
REAT
B
ARRIER
R
EEF
M
ARINE
P
ARK
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park recently declared nearly 30% of the Park as no-take areas. This was a significant shift in user acceptance of no-take areas. The processes included a visioning exercise with a range of stakeholders, working at the ecosystem level, and involving many communities. A skilled facilitator helped the process. The process institutionalized some of the ethos of sustainability, and articulated operating principles or decisionmaking rules during planning exercises through plans, that can be put into place with cycles of review performance and evaluation, auditing and incorporation of lessons learned.
While government has a key role to play in managing the ocean agenda, their challenge is to approach this in partnership and to provide meaningful participation where users’ needs are thoughtfully, carefully, and respectfully considered. In such a multiple use environment all aspects and values should be defined and understood, including short and long-term considerations as well as direct and indirect benefits and uses. The greater the degree of user participation in decision-making processes the more responsive or relevant the policy or decisions will be to the local context. Without this stakeholder buy-in the desired outcomes will not be achieved, (see
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, left).

Varying degrees of participation need to be accommodated in the process to move the ocean agenda from consultation sessions to more involved shared decision-making that involves devolution of power (often not popular from the institutional perspective). This aspect of decision making is crucial because although laws are often more uniform when made by a higher level of government, the results are more consistent when small communities are heavily involved in setting the rules.
Finally, when a set of actions have been decided upon, performance measures should be planned to provide feedback and allow for learning from the management actions. may involve compromises among different interest groups.
Operating principles for implementation should be based on independent technical and scientific advice (independent of the institution receiving it) and there should be mechanisms to allow for input from other stakeholders.
Implementing initiatives, processes and changes identified in strategic plans and policies requires on-the-water and on-thecoast actions to be taken. Once key players and structures are in place then other issues of human and financial resources, political will, capacity and communication can be put in place.
At a society level, outside of government, strategic processes need to include: changing life style patterns and work practices particularly for those rooted in cultural and societal histories; management of the human use of ocean and coastal resources; convincing many that there are limits in a technologically advanced society and that the emphasis previously placed by politicians on resource development may not be sustainable in the long term.
Institutions and people in them need to work horizontally in partnership with each other and with others in society so that all stakeholders including science are a part of the solution as seen in the Philippines (see
Results of involving all stakeholders and building capacity, page 7) and Africa
(Switching to other fishing targets, page 8).
The solutions should be clearly articulated and where possible involve users in decisionmaking, implementation and monitoring processes. Where possible, solutions should be found that have the widest benefits and ones that are practical, workable, reasonable, and justifiable. High-level independent reports (e.g.,
,
) are a good basis for developing solutions since they usually do
Decision-Making and Operational
Processes
Transparent decision making at the right levels of government and society is needed for effective implementation. The institutions and key players charged with decision making need the weight of the argument to give them the confidence to take the course of action that is needed.
Empowering key players in decisionmaking is critical to managing ocean and coastal areas. Where possible, decisions should be made on the best available information or at least the uncertainty associated with the information should be made known (see science perspective for further discussion, page 16). Using independent commissions or agencies for assessment or for providing relevant input often results in agreed decisions, which
13

14 not represent vested interests or influence one way or the other, and they set a challenge.
The roles of various players and terms of engagement should be known and understood by the institutions and users.
There should be a certain level of commitment to the outcome on the consultation process. Consultation mechanisms must have requirements to respond to and include feedback to user groups and the wider community.
Consultation with user groups is key especially with regulatory processes and agencies which direct and input to the process. Interagency taskforces, and coordinated meetings are effective means of facilitating consultation.
Where there is little mutual interest or where community activities conflict with broader social objectives, incentives should be provided (e.g. increased access to, or security of, tenure over resources; opportunities for increased management and response and output; capacity building; funding).
Sometimes leadership comes from the community with people who may be socially or economically diverse but share a common concern or issue for moving the government to action. This highlights the need to ensure that communities are meaningfully involved especially in decision making (see Skagit
River below).
The Skagit River is a small river that starts in Canada and has the Ross Dam built on the American side. In 1942 Seattle City
Light was given the formal right to raise the Ross Ross Dam to a height that would have flooded the Canadian side of the Skagit
River. In 1965 when they made their intention clear to exercise their right to this water, considerable concern arose in the community. After significant lobbying by the community, parliamentarians became concerned and through the actions of the International Joint Commission (IJC), the federal governments of Canada and the United States, and the provincial government of British Columbia the issue was settled in 1983.
Scale
The discussions and recommendations made throughout the dialogue focused on processes at all levels of government, industry and the community, because issues and actions are at different scales geographically, economically and politically.
This is seen in large countries with diverse ocean and coastal regions where problems related to equity may arise – that is fairness among all the governmental subdivisions.
When it comes to identifying problems, often they occur in different ways in different regions of the country. Governments need to embrace the idea of responsibility at different levels: international (mechanism is in place); national (need not only policies but also implementation, which is a challenge); and, regional (where government will have to delegate responsibility and power and allow real stakeholder involvement). Clearly, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach for solutions; a model that works well for some societies can be very damaging for others. For example, no-take
MPAs work well in larger economically advanced societies but in others they may disempower people who are trying to build from the bottom up (see community perspective, page 6). That is, the target to establish MPAs is a relevant and useful political management approach that may work in some societies but it is not universal.
Nevertheless, solutions at the local scale have to relate to solutions at the provincial or federal scales, although they are not the same solutions. All solutions however need to articulate a vision from the local level to the national (e.g., how do we want our marine environment to look in 25 years; what are we going to leave to our grandchildren). It is important that the goals and vision be set with institutions and that communities decide what their scale of interest is, or what the weight of their influence might be.
Accountability
When institutions and key players are empowered to make decisions they also take on the responsibility of being accountable for those decisions to the wider

community. In some cases the wider community considers accountability as insufficient considering the nature of the impact that current and future decisions may have. advice and help to resolve conflicts between institutions (especially when there are ‘turf wars’ between departments).
Regulatory institutions need to be accountable to the scientific information; scientific institutions need to be accountable to the public and transfer knowledge to the public, in general, and to the regulatory agencies. Industry should be accountable to shareholders, especially in the short term, and NGOs should be accountable to donors and to the public.
Accountability to the wider community could be communicated using report cards, annual reports, commissioned issue-based reports, etc. For example, in
Canada the Atlantic and Pacific Fisheries
Conservation Councils provide transparency and report publicly to the minister with regard to issues such as state of the stocks and habitat, setting and enforcement of fishing quotas, and implementation of recommendations from science. However, because of perceived lack of independence or questions about their ability to evoke change, their effectiveness in ensuring sustainability of fish stocks has yet to be determined.
The approach used by indigenous groups with long lineage and a strong attachment to the natural environment could serve as a model. Given that the future depends on how we currently manage our ocean resources, all these institutions should in principle be accountable to future generations.
Institutions including those in the community and industry have the tools to make the changes needed to initiate the processes discussed above. Institutional structures need to be realigned so that they cooperate with each other both horizontally and vertically, exchange information transparently, empower communities and embrace accountability within the wider community.
Today, accountability systems in most institutions and governments are vertical, despite the fact that the issues are horizontal, and institutions have not been interacting with each other. For example, in Canada issues related to ocean resources pertain to a number of different departments including Fisheries and
Oceans, Environment, Transport, Parks,
Natural Resources, and Industry. The information used is often given to decision makers at a certain department or level – so that they are accountable only to a relatively narrow group, resulting in a disconnect between decision makers and the wider community. Ideally institutions should account to a structure that would use independent expert
15

16
What is the appropriate level of integration of science into decision-making?
How can local knowledge be incorporated into decision-making?
How de we work through the “resister” created by politicians who make decisions based on re-election over the short-term and not necessarily for the long-term good of the environment or society?
The Current State of Marine Ecosystems
A sense of urgency with respect to the state of the oceans prevails among scientists. As they obtain more information about ocean systems globally, the data clearly document significant human impacts on marine ecosystems, and disruption of ecosystem structure and function, and at such a scale that there is justification for alarm. Declines have been documented for many marine species including, for example: 232 marine fish populations, world-wide, median historical decline of 83%; Northern cod, 99% since the 1960s, Atlantic cod in West of
Scotland, 80%, Irish Sea, 90% and North Sea,
90% (Jeff Hutchings). From a science perspective this raises significant concerns about the sustenance of marine ecology and biodiversity globally (Hein Ruhn Skjoldal) and therefore, for fisheries and for the coastal communities that depend on them, and indeed for food security.
What is needed first and foremost in the decision-making process is a multidisciplinary, non-reductionist approach to ocean ecosystems, one that goes beyond sustainability as the target and addresses restoration and what ocean services provide to society. Scientists come from different institutions and represent many different disciplines (for example, biology, geology, oceanography, ecology, social sciences); all need to contribute to managing and restoring ocean ecosystems.
Two presentations addressed the question:
What is the appropriate level of integration of science into decision making?
When Science was not Integrated with
Public Policy and Decision Making
The decline of the Northern cod has attracted much attention by world scientists, conservationists, fishing industry and governments globally for the past ten or more years. What caused the collapse of
Newfoundland and Labrador’s fishery for
Northern cod? In his presentation, Dr. Jeff
Hutchings referred to the ‘malleable’ or flexible or ill-defined links between science and public policy and the decision-making process as an important factor underlying the loss of the one of the largest fisheries in the world.
He described examples of how science might be dissociated from public policy and the decision-making process; for example, when science–based policy decisions are made that are inconsistent with science.
This can result in a miscommunication of science to the public and decision makers.
With respect to the decline of the Northern cod in the North Atlantic the communication of fisheries science to decision makers and to society was hindered by: the failure to acknowledge the scientific uncertainty; the lack of acknowledgement of alternative hypotheses; interference in the communication of science to a greater or lesser degree; and misrepresentation of the scientific basis of policy based decisions.
This collapse of the Northern cod was a clear example of institutions not incorporating the science into

communication - with implications of great significance to those who were planning their livelihoods based on a twoyear moratorium. It is critically important therefore to address the question of ineffective incorporation of science into resource management decisions.
Dr. Carl Walters noted in his presentation that intensive fishery removals and habitat changes, including those caused by fishing (e.g., deepsea trawling,
) are creating novel situations and we do not understand the ‘ecological response’ to these situations. Responding to these situations and designing policies imply making choices that are necessarily based on predictive models at various levels of complexity. Although more complex and articulated ecosystem models have been developed recently and these models are able to fit historical data very well, they cannot be considered to be reliable. In fact, it is difficult to understand what the real mechanisms of ecological responses are and therefore predictions would probably fail in novel situations of catastrophic nature; that is, changing the rules of interaction. For example, such models are not able to predict the outbreak of an invasive or rare species, or modifications brought about by climate change. Predictions are further impeded by the lack of long-term monitoring data on non-target species and life cycles, by the concentration of interaction effects on early life stages that are difficult to monitor, and the confounding of fishery, environment and trophic effects.
T
HE
S
TORY OF THE
N
ORTHERN
C
OD
Dr. Hutchings cited specific examples of an apparent dissociation between science and decision making with respect to the Northern cod fishery including:
• a Minister’s statement in 1990, ‘Scientists advise me that there is no recorded evidence in the scientific literature, or our own research, which states that fishing on the spawning grounds does measurable damage to the cod stocks’, despite the fact that scientists had hypothesized that cod have very complex spawning behaviour and at that time no research had actually been undertaken on the degree to which fishing may or may not affect spawning.
• the question: Are declining catches and reductions in the average size of cod indicative of a reduction in abundance? It was known in
1990 that there was an apparent overall reduction in Northern cod spawner biomass; yet the Minister was informed that “scientific advice was that lower inshore catch rates and smaller fish in recent years do not indicate stock decline”.
• the question: If the Northern cod fishery is shut down, how long will the moratorium on commercial fishing last? At first it was stated that a two-year moratorium offered the best chance for recovery.
What was the scientific basis for the two-year moratorium prediction? To what degree was the scientific information available at that time consistent with the predicted rapid increase or rapid recovery of Northern cod? The predicted annual rates of population increase would have had to be in the order of 126% to 200% every year – for a species that does not reach maturity until it is 5-7 years of age this is an extraordinarily and biologically unreasonable rapid rate of increase. Based on the data available at that time, a scientifically defendable range of maximum population growth rate was more in the order of 9 – 19% per year. Clearly, this was not a scientifically defendable timeframe.
17

18
Given this high uncertainty, Dr. Walters stressed the need to treat all ecosystem management initiatives as adaptive management experiments but cautioned that these experiments may not succeed because: some people strongly believe they already have the answers; people are afraid to embrace uncertainty in policy design because they fear loss of credibility and authority; and, there is a general lack of capacity for agencies to finance monitoring experiment responses, technologies (e.g., seabed mapping) and institutional arrangements.
Participants stressed that although modelling is an important exploring tool, interpretation should be done carefully, taking into account the underlying assumptions buried in research design.
Even so, this level of precaution seems insufficient in light of the profound uncertainty described by Dr. Walters.
However, there are some success stories such as the Wadden Sea, which involves three governments working together taking an ecosystem-based approach and including monitoring and input of local knowledge and application of the principles of adaptive management (Wadden Sea, page 11).
Strengthening the communication of science and links to public policy
Scientific information, once gained, needs an effective mechanism for integration into decision making. Independent, international scientific panels are one approach. For example, expert panels can be put in place when the government thinks it needs advice on a specific topic; e.g., the US President’s
Oceans Commission. The advantage is that they are independent and have a significant breath of scientific experience, and they can link closely with policy and decision makers.
Further there is increased public confidence in the science because of the
‘independence’. Similarly, national science academies can respond to specific questions that are raised by policy makers; for example, the UK Royal Society for
Environmental Pollution addressed the question of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment and made recommendations in their recent report,
(Ian Graham Bryce).
C
LIMATE
C
HANGE
The unanswered question is: How will the structure and dynamics of marine communities change as the climate and biogeochemical cycles change? The secondary changes are difficult and being monitored inadequately - these changes are likely to contain within them the serious consequences for all life systems. (Ken Denman)
Another example is legal frameworks designed to protect biodiversity globally and nationally; for example, the international Convention on Biological
Diversity and Canada’s new Species at Risk
Act (SARA). These have advantages in terms of communicating science in that there are associated independent expert committees which act independently of government and have the capacity to respond rapidly to policy crises, with a role that is recognized by legislation. One such example is the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
However, in all cases, targeted initiatives at local levels will be required to avoid “topdown” dissemination of information.
It is critical to understand that science is an important part of the solution, but not the only part, and that science has context and has to be seen in that context. Science is necessary to inform the setting of objectives

for defining the problem. The existing science and thinking of the science community is also needed to help the broader community set the vision and objectives; these may be less rigorous, as for example, in the case of the Wadden
Sea initiative, but regardless the vision and objectives need to be supported by science and reflect current knowledge.
Science also needs to be involved in implementing or moving forward with the vision or objectives, particularly around monitoring and evaluation, and feeding back information and lessons learned and adapting the outputs accordingly.
Linking ‘local knowledge’ with science and decision making
Defining ’local knowledge‘ is likely as important as incorporating its use into decision making at the local level; for example, is the definition broad enough to include observations of the Polish trawler captain on the Grand Banks, or does it apply just to information residing in the adjacent coastal communities? input on what information is needed.
Further, ground rules or guiding principles are needed. For example, accept that: the information is almost certain to be incomplete; decisions will require judgment and must be transparent; traditional quantitative scientific information may not be enough and proper weight will be given to anecdotal and local knowledge; and, there is a need for quality appraisal of the information using established methods.
Local knowledge is critical when the capacity of scientific institutions is limited. For example, the NGO Newfoundland and
Labrador Environmental Association focuses
C
OMMUNICATION OF
S
CIENCE
Scientists have a very important role to play in getting the information out, but the problem is that the culture of science can discourage them from speaking up on what they know. “They are not only not rewarded for doing this, but they are often discouraged or punished.”
The challenge that may prevent scientists from fully participating in research and the dissemination of data related to the protection and restoration of oceans ecosystems, is sector dependent; government scientists can be constrained, e.g., reporting of data contrary to the political climate could jeopardize their career security; academic scientists work within a ‘publish or perish’ culture, precluding the long-term studies required to establish baseline information.
Prior to the incorporation of local knowledge into the decision-making process, there needs to be a clear understanding of: what is driving the request for local knowledge; how the knowledge will be used; and whether or not it will be part of an ongoing process, thus ensuring a long-term collaboration in the decision-making process.
Trust and transparency are key in facilitating people bringing information to the table. First, it needs to be determined if there is a willingness from all sides to share knowledge; for example, what is the incentive for fishermen to share their knowledge about spawning locations, fishing hot spots, etc, with fishery managers and regulators? It is important for ‘locals’ to feel part of the process and not threatened. There must be a structure in place, such as a forum or a roundtable that includes, respects and seeks input from all interests. There also needs to be a process in place - to identify the nature of the information needed and to allow local
“We all know that everyone is suffering from information overload.” Scientists need to address the synthesis of data and scientific information to avoid the problem of the eight-second science sound byte driving political issues.
L
OCH
T
ORRIDON IN
W
ESTERN
S
COTLAND
Karen Starr provided examples of partnerships that effectively incorporate local knowledge into resource management decision making including: voluntary agreements in specific areas involving a multistakeholder process to manage salmon aquaculture while protecting wild stocks; and, a process involving local fishermen and scientists who work together with the goal of achieving a sustainable creel shrimp fishery (Marine Stewardship Certification).
19

20
Building a constituency is seen as ‘key’ in motivating politicians and could be one approach to start bridging politics and science; that is, politicians need good science because their constituencies demand it. The short-term nature of politics could be seen as problematic in assuring continuity to environmental concerns; however, if adopted as long-term policy for a particular party, the issue of oceans management could become a major platform much like health care or education.
There are successful examples where politicians are engaged in peer to peer learning and those who adopt new ideas may become vanguards and apply peer pressure among people who might be resistant to change; for example, the congresses of local mayors in the Philippines
(see Results of involving all stakeholders and building capacity, page 7).
on oil pollution of seabirds in the North
Atlantic and the Grand Banks. This local organisation has maintained beach monitoring in this remote region for the past fifteen years, and collects scientific data for government and industry, liaises with government agencies, and operates the only oiled bird rehabilitation centre in the region
(see Collaboration in addressing oil spills and passing ship bilge on adjacent ecosystems, page 21).
Bridging politics and science
Scientists study science, not the process of governance. Scientists operate within a welldefined set of rules and ethics and often lack the skills to influence policy. Elected officials tend to focus on re-election and make decisions over the short term, which may not necessarily benefit the ecosystem, environment or society over the long term.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, politics is the central part of fisheries and the management and governance of other marine resources.
Good decisions are based on good planning. The amount of knowledge and the amount of capacity that is available around the globe to actually do marine sector planning is very limited. Planning exercises should not result in a kind of blueprint; instead, they should support a process of negotiations, political negotiations, about how the future should look. We need to create the expectation that rational ocean management is a basic service of government.

Industry is a key player in reversing the current trends of the state of marine and coastal ecosystems. Industry policies and practices directly impact on the state of marine resources and therefore it is critical that industry is a part of the ocean action agenda.
How does industry best operate in an adaptive management framework that has healthy marine ecosystems as its priority?
What are the critical information needs of industry for operating within a marine resource sector – and how timely should that information be?
There is a growing expectation within society for industry to demonstrate corporate social responsibility. Engaging industry is not easy in public forums, especially with the fisheries sector which attracts considerable media attention.
Oceans are not just about fishing, but include other sectors such as gas and oil, aquaculture, technology, shipping and tourism. However, it is only through dialogue, such as in Changing Currents, that industry can be meaningfully engaged in the process of change and communicate their needs and ideas about sustainability.
What potential partnerships and collaborations do they envisage to implement the needed changes?
What models of management does industry think are needed so that their needs, community needs and ecosystem needs are met?
can be at a disadvantage, however, if their competitors do not practice this approach as well, especially when shareholders are expecting the value of their stocks to grow. If there is a competitive advantage to practicing the triple bottom line then industry will position itself and make the necessary transformations, such as improving its safety record or disposing of oil, pollutants and wastes responsibly, and with appropriate compensation when damage is done.
The focus of industry
Industry is about making money, with two key drivers to making that money: consumer demands (incentive) and regulation (stick). Generally, it is a combination of incentives and regulations that motivates industry to change.
Increasingly there are signals that business needs to be managed in a sustainable environment for long-term survival or future growth. Businesses that maintain the triple bottom line (economic, environmental and social responsibility)
C
OLLABORATION IN ADDRESSING OIL SPILLS AND PASSING SHIP BILGE ON
ADJACENT ECOSYSTEMS
Ships passing through the economic zone or in the territorial seas of Canada illegally dump oil and kill thousands of birds. This is a serious threat and has resulted in unheard of cooperation in
Newfoundland between industry and citizens and government, all with the same recommendations. The provinces of Atlantic Canada have backed a new potential law, Bill C-15, which once passed will make profound changes to the legislation affecting ships that are transiting the exclusive economic zone.
(Stan Tobin)
21

22
The current focus of marine industries is on maximizing the value of the particular sector that uses the ocean, for example fisheries, tourism, oil and gas, and shipping. Industry should also consider managing to maximize the value of ocean services as seen in the recent
report. Indeed, in the USA, value of ocean related industries changed from producing goods to delivering services between 1990 and 2000 indicating that industry has been creative and innovative.
E
XAMPLES OF COLLABORATION
“One thing we did at significant cost was to work with the Marine
Institute and the university to develop a system onboard, with the stewardship of the crew, to live release the non-target species. When the government of Canada ‘listed’ the wolffish we already had in place a technology and system on board, and the crew with proper buy-in to stewardship, to actually release the wolffish live into the water”.
Industry working in partnership
Industry recognizes the value of working with government, science, First Nations, and community groups to ensure sustainable ecosystems. Collaboration is key – “we can be far more powerful working in collaboration than snipping away at the outside of issues” - and when built upon these collaborations industry is far more powerful. It is to industry’s advantage to work with others to ensure that ecosystems and associated resources are sound or to work towards restoring the systems. Part of that cooperation should also include communication of positive examples of collaboration within industries or between diverse stakeholders; for example, the use of eco-labeling is increasing and has the potential to give industry a significant competitive advantage. That kind of communication should be a major part of the action agenda for oceans.
“The science indicated that The Gully area was a very important ecosystem on the Scotian Shelf. We probably could have decided to oppose any protected area on top of our lands and our license and probably could have made it a very public and legal issue - but it was more valuable to discuss how we manage protected areas, where our environmental interests overlap, rather than to oppose it; that is, to engage in a discussion about how we can manage it in a collaborative way. The Gully is now Canada’s second MPA”.
Industry needs to be adaptable
Industry needs to be adaptable to changing technologies and practices that contribute to better use of the environment. This requires industry to be highly innovative, creative and essentially lead the way. Many sectors are producing new products, technologies, and services and in partnership these will benefit the oceans and yield more knowledge about ocean resources. Industry can convert to and implement appropriate technologies to ensure that they are contributing to ecosystem sustainability. For this to happen, however, it often takes a major event as seen with oil spills or fisheries collapses.

It is also important to engender a sense of stewardship among all those working in ocean industries through formal and informal training; for example, a course on the environment could be designed for mariners who may have heard of MARPOL but only know it to pass their exams.
Some managers in marine industries know little about the marine environment and yet are in key decision-making roles - they need to be better informed rather than learn about it when an accident happens.
Accountability
Industry needs to be accountable not only to their shareholders but also to the wider community since they are using a common resource.
Part of that accountability includes practicing risk management as done in the shipping industry.
Industry recognizes the need to operate within sustainable ecosystems to ensure that their financial bottom line is at least maintained. This is only possible if there is collaboration with other segments of society such as civil society and the scientific community. Industry also needs to work with institutions that facilitate decision-making processes to ensure access to the resources as well as to ensure that the regulations imposed are appropriate and cost effective.
T
HE
F
ISHERIES
I
NDUSTRY
Fisheries is a major industry in the oceans with a number of people directly and indirectly employed by it. It is also considered to have a major impact on marine ecosystems and be currently in crisis (e.g. overfishing, discard and by-catch practices). Nevertheless, this industry needs to engage early in finding solutions and to be encouraged to fish sustainably with minimal impact on marine ecosystems. Otherwise the market and government regulations will motivate the changes. It is also in the industry’s best interests for the future to help rebuild ecosystems and fish stocks. The fishing industry also needs secure access to marine resources to make their bottom line consistent with healthy ecosystems. This will help to facilitate fishers’ stewardship and to move away from the government’s ‘command and control’ approach, which does not foster cooperative and responsible fisheries management.
23

24
How do we engage civil society in the dialogue and action?
What are the barriers and possibilities for civil society to bring about change?
Where will future leadership come from?
they are also needed in the public sector to encourage governments and industry to act.
An engaged civil society will, if nothing else, give politicians the urge to lead – “the best thing a politician can do is find out where the parade is going and get in front of it. It is up to civil society to start the parade”.
What steps are required to deliver the message to the public?
How can the media be more effective at informing people?
An engaged civil society is vitally important to moving the ocean agenda forward. Civil society in its various forms can play an important role in ocean governance and conservation and driving the agenda for action.
A role should be given to relevant stakeholders at each level, drawing in individuals that represent not only economic or policy interests but also other connections. These may be based on historical cultural values or personal interests. There is a need for leaders - individuals who recognize the problem and take ownership of the problem. These leaders are needed within government but
During the dialogue participants addressed the following issues: which specific groups of civil society are most interested in moving the ocean agenda forward and how do these groups become engaged; and, do engagement tools that work for one target audience work for all or are there specific tools applicable to one subset of civil society more than another and to what end.
Clearly it is beneficial to engage civil society in order to advance the ocean agenda.
However, it is also important to identify specifically what it is that civil society or its subset needs to do.
What is civil society?
Civil society is typically characterized as being made up of individuals outside the realm of governments and industry.
Community-based organisations are one component of civil society. Others operate at levels beyond the local, from multicommunity to international circles. Civil society is not a homogenous, tidy thing. We are fortunate because most of us “live in a civilized place, we do have something that we can describe as civil society, an informed constituency of opinion makers, activists, academics, non-government organisations, relatively free press,” that can be drawn upon in building wider constituencies for an ocean agenda.
Key Challenges for Civil Society
North American polls show that public knowledge of oceans is extremely low but their concern for the current state and future of oceans is very high (75-90%). In one US poll the only unaided problem of the oceans that the public could identify was the risk of oil spills. Addressing this disconnect between the level of concern and the level of knowledge is a challenge for civil society and needs to be overcome in order to mobilize the public to take personal and political action for the oceans. Some strategies to do this include:

Help scientists communicate more effectively
“When the public is asked who they trust the number one source of information that they cite is scientists, closely followed by teachers and then at the far end of the scale are politicians and journalists”.
It is important to mobilize public opinion around the achievement of certain recognizable and defensible objectives that the scientific communities have laid out and have made quite clear for some time. Helping scientists to communicate this information effectively is key.
not believe there has been a problem with the cod fishery.” It is important to identify subsidies for fishing and other ocean sectors that may be encouraging unsustainable products and to shift to disincentives or the use of controls such as export taxes on unsustainable products and industries. We need to create proper price structures and look at the possibility of redirecting subsidy dollars to marketing of ‘green’ products, launching and supporting informed consumer campaigns and certification systems for sustainable fisheries, such as
Marine Stewardship Certification.
The problem is that the culture of science discourages scientists from speaking out about what they know. “They are not only not rewarded for doing this, they are often discouraged or punished”.
(see science perspective, page 16)
Nevertheless, participants identified the need for independent overview, made up principally by scientists, to ensure that the public “can find out what is going on” with the world’s oceans. Currently, citizens attempting to get engaged in ocean affairs may face barriers of political interference in science and decision making, lack of transparency and lack of access to information.
Media and Education
Media and education both play important roles in facilitating change.
“Clearly education is part and parcel … its ability to insinuate itself into the minds and then the hearts of individuals is a way that galvanizes students and moves them to action. Those students that have the biggest impact are the ones that believe and, by virtue of the information itself, become the most viable and persuasive advocates.” Aquariums have been building general awareness, empathy and education for years, getting at both end-point specific objectives like sustainable seafood but also as a permanent ongoing exercise in activating society.
Consumer campaigns
Consumers, another segment of civil society, have a very direct role in ocean decision making in that they consume marine resources. What they consume, and how much, has a significant impact on the health of the oceans.
The question raised was how to create responsible, informed consumers, “how to reach the person in Toronto who is buying cod in the supermarket and does
Journalists, also a component of civil society, are always looking for the bottom-line first, so most scientists have to be taught to turn their presentations around and begin with their bottom-line, rather than the minutia, the details, and the increments. “Journalists are always looking for the quick overview and the ‘so what’? Journalists care about a variety of opinions and perspectives and it is often challenging for scientists to see other perspectives. ... Scientists deal with the rational and journalists are trying to appeal to the emotional. …And of course scientists will devote their lives, or at least years, to a study and a journalist may have a daily deadline… For the media it is called news and this is for a reason. A lot of the things scientists talk about are not news and scientists have to think about ways to make them news… The public really responds to: How does it affect me?”.
25

26
Effective Communication Strategies
Ocean advocates need to look for strategic opportunities to engage with outside audiences. The use of public events as well as tools like maps help people understand the issues. The identification and use of icons can also raise peoples’ awareness about how important the ocean is. “They do care about whales, dolphins, and about salmon. The salmon on the west coast of
Canada is an icon for British Columbia. So is the lowly rockfish - because if the rockfish continues to decline it is going to mean major closures in the groundfish fishery and that gets peoples’ attention. It is looking at individual species, not looking at the broad ocean, which we also have to do but you have to grab the public’s attention.”
To get a message out information has to be framed appropriately for the audience within a context that is socially relevant for them.
“…the question is not is it relevant but what language do we use to demonstrate its relevance…Until we begin to craft the arguments in terms of how the ocean in all of its ramifications relates directly to our individual health and wealth we will go nowhere. Everyone decides an issue on their own self interest first and then they go on and calculate it into the collective and community and then they go on beyond that to see it as regional, or national or international context. But the first thing that makes them persuaded is a value judgment that takes place inside their heart and mind.” Funds need to be invested into communications and communication professionals need to be hired by oceans organisations and agencies to reach the public heart and mind.
However, people are suffering from information overload. The message has to be jargon-free.
Effective communication is complicated by the fact that there is no one leader or group in civil society and sometimes there is no mechanism to bring like-minded groups or people with the same sort of feelings together. They are “wandering around trying to figure out what should be done and how to do it”. “The big challenge is telling a story that will allow people to see some way that change might be achieved”.
W
HAT IS THE MESSAGE
?
Communicators have to be clear on:
• what is the segment of society we are trying to activate,
• what do we want them to do,
• how do we propose to get them to do it, via what action, and then
• how do we get whomever that group is to become enthused and take action?

The Role for NGOs
Non-government organisations (NGOs) can play a critical role in oceans change because they provide an avenue for people to get involved and take action.
The explosion of the NGO sector and its implications are multi-faceted and the subject of a growing literature. They range from small local groups to multi-national organisations and span a full range of issues. Often they start small and then attempt to build a larger constituency - a strategy for change discussed throughout the dialogue. NGOs are accountable to donors and to the public and have the diverse constituencies but they also need the right information, capacity and support from policymakers to make things happen. NGOs, like politicians, have to work and adapt in order to maintain their constituency.
Find messages of hope
The message should not always be negative. Positive examples include: rebounding eagle and great blue heron populations in the Strait of Georgia,
British Columbia; 2003 pink salmon returns to the Fraser River in BC are twice as high as any recorded pink salmon return to this river in the twentieth century; and, a spawning biomass of herring in the
Strait of Georgia in 2004 that is equal to the weight of the human population in the province of Alberta. “There is a narrative template that is at once stunning and dispiriting and so dreary as to zap the strength and excise whatever spring in the step one average citizen might have confronted by all of these horrible realities… . We have to make it plain that the ocean is still worth fighting for, that there is still hope, that there is still great life there and that for all that has befallen these wonderful creatures for all of the sins that we have committed against creation it is amazing how resilient a lot of these populations are and a lot of the ecosystems are. It is amazing what is possible”.
A
CID
R
AIN
Acid rain is one case where we can say with some modesty that it was a federal government that started the campaign, but it was then carried on by civil society. It began in Stockholm in 1972 and then it got into a committee with the provincial legislature in
Ontario, Canada. It basically got its big start because the federal government pushed it, but it got tremendous support from some members of parliament in the federal house because civil society and government together said, “Listen! Unless something changes, cottage country Ontario (the playground of the most populous province in Canada) is going to lose its lakes and waters because the pH is being driven down by acidic depositions”. That was carried to a large degree as a consequence of members of parliament from all parties being persuaded by civil society, but not in one neat cohesive group, until later when an organisation was formed which then did its lobbying on the United States side. The key US organisation that helped make that happen - gave us our first real support - was the Isaac Walton League. The Isaac Walton
League membership in those days was about 85-95% Republican, but they were fierce conservationists.
S
OUTH
M
ORESBY
P
ARK
R
ESERVE
South Moresby is the southern archipelago of Haida Gwaii (the
Queen Charlotte Islands) in British Columbia. There were those who thought that this area should be saved from logging, and those who thought it should be logged. Combinations of people from British
Columbia, New York, Seattle, Ottawa, the Canadian Maritimes, many other places, and especially our aboriginal friends, the Haida, from the region made it possible to build an effective campaign against logging. Finally politicians were persuaded to support this campaign and the federal government committed one of the largest sums of money it had ever spent to acquire a Park Reserve for this area. This happened despite everything that was done to stop it. Again it started with civil society but it would not have succeeded if ultimately civil society had not persuaded the members of parliament to take action. It nearly fell apart, but because I was the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the
Prime Minister was in the same party that I represented, I could directly connect civil society with the Office of the Prime Minister.
All of that happened because members of parliament eventually got involved, but it did not start at the political level. (John Fraser)
27

28
W
HY WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING NOW
?
“The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” - Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration -
Intergenerational Equity.
A common rallying point is needed to educate and activate citizens as part of civil society, and to bring as many individuals as possible together. While we must also search for positive messages, and messages of hope, rallying points are often associated with external or internal threats, illustrated for example by the 2004 tsunami.
In planning and implementing those strategies for change, multiple strategies and multiple individuals are needed.
Keeping the notion of intergenerational equity in mind oceans have the potential for broad mobilisation if the right message is effectively communicated and vehicles to facilitate positive action are put in place.
Future leadership
Where will future leadership come from to take on the responsibility of informing and hence engaging civil society? Leadership is needed and can be found “all over the place.” Environmental studies, for example, is the fastest growing undergraduate major in the USA. There is tremendous demand for capacity and a tremendous numbers of potential leaders. Opportunities to match these sources of supply and demand are needed. The leaders are also to be found in unexpected places.
One of the goals of the Changing Currents
Dialogue was to mentor future leaders in the oceans arena. This was done by inviting leaders who represented early, mid and senior career levels in their sectors. At the conclusion of the dialogue there was commitment from participants to continue networking with one another to build on the momentum achieved on-site.

Participants at Changing Currents: Charting a Course of Action for the Future of
Oceans concluded after three days of dialogue with a commitment to establish an international network focused on aggressively advancing an agenda of action for the future sustainability of the world’s oceans.
It was agreed that there is a need for stronger coordination and collaboration at and across local, regional, national and international levels in order to achieve the sea change required in ocean governance. There was strong support for: new leadership and institutional reform, identification of resisters and enablers of change and identification of working examples of success at local to global scales.
The PURPOSE of the Changing Currents network, which will be given leadership by
Simon Fraser University working in close cooperation with University of British
Columbia and other ocean-focused networks and organisations, will be to maintain the momentum achieved in the conference, and to provide coordination and leadership to inform and energize decisions and the actions to make tangible progress in doable steps, big and small, local and global.
Participants at the meeting left with a clear sense of purpose both to see Canada rapidly fulfill the promise of their Oceans Act and Oceans Action Plan and to participate in an international network that would inspire and provide leadership in the way humans live, work and enjoy the oceans. With three oceans, Canada has a unique and special responsibility to take leadership in building global solutions.
29

Linking Changing Currents with a Blueprint for Action for the Future of Oceans
Representatives from all sectors and all career levels
• NGOs
• communities
• industry
• academics
• governments (all levels)
JUNE 2005
Fundraising by
Coordination Team to support task forces
Changing Currents:
Charting a Course of Action for the Future of Oceans
Dialogue
• Conveners Report
• Framework for Action
• Information Dissemination
Changing Currents Network
(all sectors, all career levels)
Coordination Team
Steering Group
(ideas incubator)
Thematic Task Forces
(defi ned by steering group)
• research
• specifi c actions
• building constituencies
Satellite workshops and information dissemination
Climate Change
Regional Governance
Communities with a focus on MPAs
Implementing Oceans
Acts/Policies
Mapping and Science
Valuation
Shipping Practices
Research, Technology
Development and Innovation
Other
OUTPUT:
• Policy Recommendations
• Action
Changing Currents:
Second meeting for evaluation, analysis and deliberation.
Learning and Feedback
JUNE 2005–2007 2007–2008
30
FEBRUARY 2005

Linking Changing Currents with a Blueprint for Action for the Future of Oceans
Representatives from all sectors and all career levels
• NGOs
• communities
• industry
• academics
• governments (all levels)
FEBRUARY 2005 JUNE 2005
Fundraising by
Coordination Team to support task forces
Changing Currents:
Charting a Course of Action for the Future of Oceans
Dialogue
• Conveners Report
• Framework for Action
• Information Dissemination
Changing Currents Network
(all sectors, all career levels)
Coordination Team
Steering Group
(ideas incubator)
Thematic Task Forces
(defi ned by steering group)
• research
• specifi c actions
• building constituencies
Satellite workshops and information dissemination
Regional Governance
Communities with a focus on MPAs
Implementing Oceans
Mapping and Science
Valuation
Shipping Practices
Research, Technology
Development and Innovation
Other
OUTPUT:
• Policy Recommendations
• Action
Changing Currents:
Second meeting for evaluation, analysis and deliberation.
Learning and Feedback
JUNE 2005–2007 2007–2008
31

Muhammad Akhtar, Senior Safety Inspector, Marine Safety,
Pacific Region, Transport Canada, Vancouver, BC,
Canada
Jackie Alder, Research Associate, Fisheries Ctr., University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Ray Andrews, Director, Government and Industry Relations,
Fishery Products International, St. John’s, NL, Canada
Nancy Baron, Ocean Science Outreach Director, SeaWeb/
COMPASS Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Julia Baum, PhD Student, Marine Conservation Biology,
Dalhousie University, NS, Canada
Leah Bendell-Young, Professor, Biological Sciences, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Glenn Blackwood, Managing Director, Canadian Centre for
Fisheries Innovation, Marine Institute, St. John’s, NL,
Canada
Jason Boire, Oceans Policy Analyst, Marine Ecosystems
Conservation Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Hugo Cameron, Sr. Assoc., Int’l Ctr. for Trade and
Sustainable Development, Kidatu, Tanzania
Bruce Chapman, New Zealand Industry Seafood Council,
Wellington, New Zealand
Murray Chatwin, Vice President, Ocean Fisheries Ltd.,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Omer Chouinard, Professor, Sociology, Université de
Moncton, NB, Canada
Patrick Christie, Assistant Prof., Marine Affairs, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Linda Coady, Vice President, Pacific Region, World Wildlife
Fund, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Roger Creasey, Manager, Ecosystem Management, Shell
Canada Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada
Andrew Day, Executive Director, West Coast Vancouver
Island Aquatic Management Board, Port Alberni, BC,
Canada
Bill de la Mare, Professor, Resource and Environmental
Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC,
Canada
Ken Denman, Research Scientist, Integration and
Prediction, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Sidney, BC, Canada
Suzan Dionne, Natural Resource Conservation, Parks
Canada, Quebec City, QC, Canada
Mika Samba Diop, Biologiste des Pêches, Conseiller au
Secrétariat Permanent de la Com. Sous-Régionale des
Pêches, Coord. du projet PSRA-Requins, Dakar, Sénégal
Bebeb Djundjunan, Consul, Indonesian Consulate,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Jens Enemark, Secretary, Common Wadden Sea
Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany
Alison Evans, Director, Coastal Planners/Exec. Director,
Oceans Mgmt. Research Network, Halifax, NS, Canada
Stephen Farber, Professor, Graduate School Public &
International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Susan Farlinger, Regional Director, Oceans Habitat and
Enhancement Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Bridget Ferriss, Ecosystems Observations Program,
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Silver
Spring, MD, USA
Ian Fleming, Director, Ocean Sciences Ctr., Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada
The Hon. John Fraser, Chair, Pacific Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Patricia Gallaugher, Director, Continuing Studies in
Science and the Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon
Fraser University, BC, Canada
Alison Gill, Professor, School of Resource and
Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, BC, Canada
Terry Glavin, Fisheries Writer/Researcher and Marine
Conservation Advisor, Sierra Club,
Mayne Island, BC, Canada
Ian Graham-Bryce, Member, Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution, and Principal Emeritus,
University of Dundee, Scotland
Leslie Grattan, Board Member, Coastal Zone Canada, St.
John’s, NL, Canada
Sylvie Guénette, Research Associate, Fisheries Centre,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Richard Haedrich, former Co-Chair, Marine Fishes,
Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, NL,
Canada
Peter Harrison, Senior Research Fellow, Oceans, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Peter Heffernan, Chief Executive, Marine Institute, Galway,
Ireland
Arlo Hemphill, Manager, Defying Oceans End,
Conservation International, Washington, DC, USA
Hans Herrmann, Head, Conservation of Biodiversity Pgm.,
Int’l Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
Montreal, QC, Canada
Marc Hershman, Professor, Marine Affairs, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Rod Hesp, Senior Master, BC Ferries, Vancouver, BC,
Canada
Philip Hill, Research Scientist, Marine Studies Section,
Natural Resources Canada, Sydney, BC
Mark Hipfner, Marine Research Scientist, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment Canada, Delta, BC
Vicky Husband, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club of Canada,
BC Chapter, Victoria, BC, Canada
32

Jeff Hutchings, Canada Research Chair in Marine
Conservation Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
NS, Canada
Russ Jones, Technical Director, Haida Fisheries
Program, Skidigate, BC, Canada
Bikramjit Kanjilal, Captain, Environment and Quality,
Teekay Shipping Ltd., BC, Canada
Richard Kenchington, Principal, RAC Marine Pty Ltd,
Jamison, Australia
Ilse Kiessling, Oceans Liaison Officer, National Oceans
Office, Northern Territory, Australia
Hartwig Kremer, Executive Officer, Land Ocean
Interactions in the Coastal Zone, International Project
Office, Texel, Netherlands
Rikk Kvitek, Professor, Earth Systems Science and Policy,
California State University, Monterey Bay, Seaside,
CA., USA
Ken MacInnis, Q.C., Administrator, Ship-source Oil
Pollution Fund, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Steve Mackinson, Senior Science Officer, Lowestoft
Laboratory, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, Suffolk,UK
Frank Maes, Maritime Institute of Ghent University and
Belgian Science and Policy, Ghent, Belgium
Genine McCurdy, Senior Commerce Officer, Marine
Directorate, Industry Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Karen McLeod, Science Coordinator, COMPASS,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Peter Neill, Director, World Ocean Observatory, New
York, NY, USA
John Nightingale, President, Vancouver Aquarium
Marine Science Centre, BC, Canada
Rudy North, North Growth Management Ltd.,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Marivic Pajaro, PhD Candidate, Project Seahorse,
Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada
Daniel Pauly, Director, Fisheries Centre, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
John Pierce, Dean of Arts and Social Sciences, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Sapta Putra, Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and
Fisheries, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia
Catherine Rigg, PhD. Candidate, Geography, Simon
Fraser University, Haida Gwaii, BC
Jamie Ross, PhD Cand., University of British Columbia and past Fellow, Action Canada, Vancouver, BC,
Canada
Sherrylynn Rowe, NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow, Biology,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Silvia Salas, CINVESTAV-IPN, Unidad Mérida, Antigua
Carretera a Progreso, Yucatan, Mexico
Glenn Sigurdson, Fellow, Morris J. Wosk Centre for
Dialogue, Simon Fraser University, and CSE Group,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Hein Rune Skjoldal, Institute of Marine Research and, Chair,
Advisory Committee for Marine Environment ICES,
Bergen,Norway
Ron Smyth, Chief Science Officer, BC Offshore Oil and Gas
Team, BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, Victoria, BC,
Canada
Paul Snelgrove, CRC in Boreal and Cold Ocean Systems,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL,
Canada
Wayne Soper, Chair, ICSC International Centre Sustainable
Cities, and Retired Vice President, Duke Energy,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Jodi Stark, Marine Campaign Coordinator, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Vancouver, BC
Karen Starr, Coordinator, Area Management Agreements and Shieldaig Export Company Limited, Shieldaig,
Scotland
Michael Stevenson, President, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, BC, Canada
Keith Stoodley, LOTEK Wireless Fish and Wildlife
Monitoring, St. John’s, NL, Canada
Eric Tamm, Communications Manager, Ecotrust Canada,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Stan Tobin, Ship Cove, Placentia Bay, NL, Canada
Peter Tyedmers, Assist. Professor and Program
Coordinator, Resource and Environmental Studies,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Gert van Santen, former Senior Fisheries Specialist, World
Bank, Bethesda, MD, USA
Marjo Vierros, Pgm. Officer, Marine and Coastal Biological
Diversity Secretariat, Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal, QC, Canada
Kelly Vodden, PhD Candidate, Geography, Simon Fraser
University, Indian Bay, NL, Canada
Joanne Vokey, formerly One Ocean, St. John’s, NL,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Carl Walters, Professor, Fisheries Centre, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Mike Warren, Executive Director, Policy and Planning, NL
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, St. John’s, NL,
Canada
Maureen Woodrow, Executive Officer GECHS, Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa,
ON, Canada
Doug Yurick, Chief, Marine Program Coordination, Parks
Canada, Gatineau, QC, Canada
Mark Zacharias, Manager, Ocean Sciences Office, BC
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria,
BC, Canada
33

The Centre for Coastal Studies, within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, at Simon Fraser University, promotes interdisciplinary research, education and dialogue on Canada’s coastal ecosystems, particularly those in British Columbia.
For more information about the Centre for Coastal Studies please visit www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies