Copies of the Executive Summary and full report are available at http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Sustainability/

www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

The Tides, Currents, and Water Levels Web Site provides predicted times and heights of high and low waters, and the hourly water levels for over seven hundred stations in Canada. The printed version is published yearly and is available through the authorized chart dealers. Presently there are no actual current predictions available on the Web site.

In the spring of 1997, three Canadian academics, Professors Hutchings (Dalhousie University), Haedrich (Memorial University of Newfoundland) and Walters (University of British Columbia), published a stinging attack on Canada's Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) in the pages of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. The news media kept the resulting controversy alive through that summer, with Stephen Thorne of Canadian Press playing a leading role, while several editorials in Atlantic Canadian newspapers (including one that I wrote for Atlantic Fisherman) called for an official inquiry into the Department's management of the fisheries. The federal government, in the person of the then-Minister of Fisheries & Oceans, Hon. David Anderson M.P., rejected those calls. However, in the fall the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries & Oceans began its own investigation, under the leadership of its then-Chairman, Mr. George Baker M.P. -- a member of the governing Liberal Party but still a vocal critic of the fisheries policies of the government.

The issues surrounding fisheries and their management are intricately complex and give endless scope for confusion. Even before the Standing Committee began its work, it was clear that the different interest groups were arguing on different planes, each emphasizing the strengths of its own position and the weaknesses of its opponents' arguments when those were judged in the frame of reference prefered by whoever was speaking. That approach cannot lead anywhere but to contradiction and confusion. Instead, if anything worthwhile is to emerge, it is essential first to expand the debate to encompass all viewpoints and then for each interest group to explore the weaknesses of its own position and the strengths of all counter-arguments.

It was also abundantly clear at the time that some of the original criticisms of DFO were simply wrong, while the solutions being promoted from within the universities seemed not so much unreasonable as downright misguided; though only those with broad experience in fisheries management will have understood why. Meanwhile, some of DFO's rebutals were, in their turn, little more than evasions, which made even its valid arguments seem less than convincing. Moreover, my initial interactions with the Standing Committee suggested that its members mostly lacked the specialist understanding of fisheries science and management that they would need to find their way through the complex of contradictory information that they were being given.

In that setting, and particularly considering that the Standing Committee was offering the only public review of DFO's performance that we were likely to see in the 1990s, I decided that independent fisheries scientists (free of the constraints that restrict colleagues within DFO) were duty-bound to speak out. To remain silent was to become part of the problems besetting Canada's fisheries and thus to abandon the very objectives of fisheries science. Furthermore, it was not sufficient to add to the cacophony of contradictory statements being offered to the Committee's members. Rather, what was needed was a balanced examination of the issues and a concrete proposal for a route forward. Such a submission could attract criticism and thus needed to be presented in sufficient detail that it could not be casually dismissed by those who disliked its conclusions.

It should also be said that such a submission was always likely to be ignored by those with the power to implement the suggestions that it contained. Equally, if any interest group took up those suggestions and advanced them, it was to be expected that the ideas would be distorted and manipulated to suit special interests. In preparing my submission, I did not suppose that its fate would be any more positive. That is not, however, adequate reason to refrain from engaging, at a professional level, in a public debate of such importance.

The formal submission to the Standing Committee which arose from these reflections eventually ran to nearly 40 pages, arranged in twelve independent "essays", plus a summary and an introduction. It was sent to the Standing Committee in January 1998, when a copy was also sent to Mr. Anderson for his information and that of his staff. To nobody's great surpise, I never received any formal response from the Standing Committee, though I was once asked to appear before them in Ottawa. The invitation came so late that there was no possibility of my responding. (For his part, Mr. Anderson did respond in April 1998, even though the material had only been sent to him for information. As was to be expected, his letter was polite but dismissive.)

In due course, the Standing Committee produced its East Coast Report of March 1998 -- an interesting document though obviously destined to be as ignored as most other transient comments on the Atlantic Canadian fisheries. Later that year, Mr.ÊBaker was removed from the Chairmanship of his Committee, which then lapsed into quiescence. (In the summer of 1999, he was promoted to Prime Minister Chretien's cabinet.)

It might be best to leave my submission in the oblivion to which the Committee consigned it. However, in the belief that it may contain ideas of some lasting value, it is here published on the Web, as a verbatim copy (aside from corrections of a few spelling and grammatical errors) of the version sent to the Standing Committee and the Minister. Whatever the merits of my specific suggestions, I hope that they will contribute to the wider debate on the ways in which Canada's fisheries, and those of other countries, should be managed.

Since this material has not be updated since it was submitted in January 1998, certain points made may no longer be valid. DFO's science machine, for example, seems to have halted its prolonged decline during 1997-98 and has since begin to show some signs of revitalization -- morale, funding, staffing levels and sense of purpose have all improved since my essays were composed. In 1999, the Department has even commenced an effort to draw together an explicit statement of policy, as recommended in my final essay.

Trevor Kenchington
Gadus Associates

August 1999

Canadian Fisheries Management in the Twenty-First Century

Links to the Text of the Submission

The original submission was structured as a summary, an introduction and twelve "essays". The latter were not intended to be read in any particular order and, to facilitate that flexibility, the fourteen items were loose-bound. The material is here reproduced in two forms. First, the text is available to be read on-line, following the original structure:

Summary
Introduction
A Time for Radical Change
Canada Needs a Fisheries Policy
A Place for Unnatural Science
The Seamless Web of Science
Whither Fisheries Science?
Imprecisions and Uncertainty
Stock Assessment and the Private Sector
Contradictions and Conflicts
Scales of Time and Space
Fishermen, Councils and Control
Trouble at the Centre: DFO in the 1990s
Looking Towards a Solution

Marine Protected Areas:
A fisheries management perspective
by Trevor J. Kenchington PhD
Gadus Associates
© Gadus Associates 1995

Introduction

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have an important place in the future of Canadian oceans management. They should not, however, be seen as a primary fisheries management tool. Indeed, except in special circumstances, MPAs are not expected to be of direct benefit to the fisheries. Rather, their principal value to fisheries management is as a "hedge" against the unexpected; a means to avoid management failure when our knowledge of the resources is so uncertain.
In this presentation, I will explore the place of MPAs in Canadian fisheries management and will make three main suggestions:

• MPAs should be used as a tool for fisheries management in the face of uncertainty,
• MPAs should otherwise be regarded as one of a number of tools available to fisheries management and should only be used when they are the "best" way to achieve management objectives, and
• The entire EEZ should be managed as a "Protected Area", within which different restrictions would apply in various zones and some particular (highly restricted) zones would be declared as MPAs.

Definition of MPA

A Marine Protected Area (MPA) is here taken to mean a long-term, year-round closure of a sea area to some or all fishing activity. Other forms of human activity might also be restricted in that area. This definition differs from that adopted by the UN Man and the Biosphere Program¹ in being more specific and more oriented to the requirements of fisheries management.

Short-term closures of certain areas, such as those that now apply to most Atlantic Canadian groundfish resources, are an appropriate and sometimes necessary emergency management measure. They are also a conventional tool of fisheries management which should not be confused with the emerging idea of MPAs.

Seasonal closures of particular areas have been termed "MPAs" by some. Yet they too are well-known fishery management tools and have only secondary effects on elements of the marine ecosystem other than resource species. (It will do little for benthic habitats, for example, if bottom fishing gear is excluded from an area for a few months each year when that area is heavily dragged during the rest of the season.) Thus, there seems little advantage in broadening the definition of MPAs to include seasonal closures².

There have even been suggestions that a series of "MPAs" could be opened to fishing in rotation, allowing sedentary resources to be produced in a protected setting and then exploited when the area is opened - essentially creating an endless series of "pulse fisheries". This too is an established, though rather uncommon, fisheries management technique, known simply as "rotation management". Regarding the various areas in such management as "MPAs" seems likely to cause only confusion.

The draft Oceans Act clearly distinguishes between MPAs and the established methods of fishery resource conservation and habitat protection. I recommend that that distinction be maintained, even when MPAs are considered as fishery management measures.

MPA Objectives Outside the Fisheries

There are many reasons for declaring an MPA which do not directly relate to fisheries management. These can include:

• Protection of rare or otherwise special species (e.g. right whales)
• Protection of examples of particular habitats (cf. terrestrial protected areas)
• Protection of submerged historic sites (particularly shipwrecks)
• Provision of ecological research facilities, especially for studies of benthic ecology
• Provision of recreational areas (usually for shallow-water SCUBA-diving tourism)

These objectives are closely similar to those underlying most national park programs on land. They are all valid and important concerns for public policy which should be addressed by the Government of Canada. However, none of these objectives offer direct benefits to the fisheries. Some (particularly the ecological research) may create indirect benefits for them and MPAs designed to meet any of these objectives may have unintended benefits of various kinds. Nevertheless, MPA programs focused on any of these objectives should not be expected to offer much benefit to the fisheries.

Indeed, by limiting or preventing fishing activity in extensive sea areas, such MPAs can be expected to have significant negative effects on fisheries. Where other policy concerns may properly over-ride fisheries issues, MPAs may be appropriate but they should then be acknowledged as harmful to fishing interests, which may deserve compensation for lost opportunities.

MPAs as a Fisheries Management Tool

It has generally been assumed by marine fisheries scientists (probably correctly, in most cases) that fishing effort is the principal human impact on fisheries resources. Excluding fishing from the area of an MPA can, therefore, be expected to lead to an increase in resource biomass and, perhaps, in its production. That extra biomass will, however, be unavailable to the fishery (being within the MPA), which will indeed experience an initial loss of available resource when it is excluded from access to the existing (if depleted) resources of the MPA area. Thus, for an MPA to benefit the fishery, it is not sufficient that it enhances resource levels within its boundaries -- it must lead to an increase in available resource biomass outside those boundaries. Furthermore, that increase must exceed the level of previously-available biomass within those boundaries before the MPA can be regarded as producing any net direct benefit to the fisheries.

If the area of the MPA was previously a preferred fishing ground, the industry will be compelled to compensate for loss of access by fishing in places where its costs are higher (assuming that the former fishing grounds were, in some sense, socio-economically optimal). Thus, the net increase in available biomass must be great enough to offset this extra cost before such an MPA could be regarded as a desirable fisheries management measure.

This external biomass increase obviously requires that part of the resource flows out of the MPA in some way. (Closing all of 2J3KL to cod fishing is a necessary emergency measure. If that closure were maintained indefinitely, however, it might result in a rich population of northern cod but those fish would rarely leave the closed area and so would not be available to any fishery.) Supplying a resource to fished areas also requires, of course, that the MPA is capable of enhancing resource production within its boundaries. That it will only do if the resource animals spend much of their lives within protected waters. (Closing the Hell Hole to tuna fishing, for example, would serve little purpose. The fish would certainly swim out of the closed area quickly, becoming available to the fishery, but they would spend so little of their lives within it that it would do little or nothing to affect biomass levels³.) For an MPA to return benefits to the fishery, therefore, it is critically important that its size, location and borders are appropriate to the particular biology of the resource and technology of the fishery that it is designed to enhance.

In some cases, particular features of the resource or fishery can serve to define clear and appropriate borders for us. In other cases, we face a very intricate problem which requires far more knowledge of the resources than we presently have. Selecting the borders of a fishery MPA may be the greatest problem confronting the use of MPAs as a fishery management tool.

Defining the Problems

In order to select these borders, we must first know what conservation problems face a particular fishery. There will be no benefit, for example, in protecting spawning stock biomass unless (1) the resource is limited by a lack of recruits and (2) the number of recruits is limited by a lack of spawning biomass. There is little evidence for the latter in most of our fisheries.

Once the problems have been identified, we must determine solutions and then select among the various options for achieving those solutions. If the problem is seen to be low juvenile survival, as a result of incidental destruction by fishing gear, the solution would clearly be to prevent that destruction. We would still need to pick among the tools at our disposal: an MPA covering the nursery area, an increase in mesh size, restrictions on some types of fishing gear, introduction of "conservation technology" modifications to that gear, and so on. The choice should presumably be based on grounds of efficiency and efficacy (in their widest senses), perhaps modified by equitability.

Understanding the Biology

If an MPA were decided upon as the management tool of choice, before drawing its boundaries we would need to know enough of the biology of the resource to ensure that closing the area would substantially enhance biomass levels inside. This is very largely a matter of understanding the factors that will limit that biomass. (For example: If biomass in the MPA will be strongly limited by recruitment, and if that is limited by spawning stock size, then it is important that the MPA be large enough and so situated that it can receive recruits from within -- the population will not increase if it draws its recruits from depleted areas outside its boundaries.)

We would also need to understand how the resource will flow out to fished areas outside the MPA. Among other mechanisms, this might be achieved by:

• The migration of maturing juveniles from an MPA nursery ground to the adult, fished grounds,
• The drift of planktonic eggs and/or larvae, produced by spawning adults within an MPA, to settlement sites on the fished grounds, or
• The slow movement of adults from an over-populated MPA to the fished grounds, as they search for food or living space.

Whichever of these forms of "flow" is expected, before drawing MPA boundaries, it will be essential to know its amount, plus the direction and distance that the fish or larvae will move.

Understanding the Fishery

If an MPA is to benefit a fishery, it will also be essential that its boundaries are drawn appropriately to match the needs of that fishery. It will not help if, for example, fish "flow" out of the MPA but only into areas that, for technical reasons, are unfishable. Nor will it usually be desirable if certain groups of fishermen find themselves shut out of their only grounds, while the benefits of enhanced fishing are enjoyed by people from other ports or who use other kinds of gear. Thus, before we establish a fishery MPA, we should ensure that we truly understand the fisheries we are trying to help -- something that is rare in Canada.

Ideally, we would be able to acquire sufficient understanding of both the industry and its resource to predict, with useful precision, the result of establishing an MPA. In managing real fisheries, that will rarely be possible and the choice of an MPA as the "best" management tool, along with that of the boundaries to use, will have to be a matter of judgement. Indeed, very often our knowledge is insufficient even for that -- and therein lies the principal value of MPAs to fisheries management.

MPAs as a Precautionary Measure

The above arguments assume that fisheries managers can have effective knowledge of the resources and their environments. This is patently untrue -- most of our resource species are poorly understood, estimates of their sustainable yields are highly imprecise, knowledge of the key constraints on their production is founded on untested assumptions, and their ecological relationships are almost unknown. That being so, one key to successful fisheries management lies in application of the precautionary principle: When we do not know what we are doing, it will always pay to tread lightly.

Thus, the primary reason for establishing fishery MPAs is that they can set aside areas of the ocean where the natural resource production processes can continue, even if all human attempts at fisheries management go completely wrong⁴. Whether seen in terms of a "hedge" against uncertainty or of reserving some minimum-acceptable part of the ocean ecosystem beyond human interference, such "precautionary" MPAs should probably play a major part in Canadian marine fisheries management in the early 21st century.

The greater the uncertainty confronting fisheries managers, the greater the need for such MPAs. Indeed, our present lack of useful knowledge is so severe that a strict interpretation of FAO's draft Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries could lead to the complete closure of all fishing grounds. That is clearly not an acceptable option. It does mean that appropriate "precautionary" MPAs should be selected through wise judgement, seeking to balance the exclusion of the fishing industry from productive grounds with the need to ensure the continued productivity of those grounds, all without usefully precise information on the industry or its resources -- a form of decision-making for which the FRCC was designed.

If we truly knew nothing of our fisheries resources, it would be sufficient to declare a large part of the ocean as "precautionary" MPAs and then to trust to luck -- less reliance on "luck" requiring either larger MPAs, and so smaller fisheries, or else some knowledge with which to reduce our uncertainty. In reality, we do know something and could quickly and cheaply learn more. Blind selection of "precautionary" MPAs would, therefore, be inefficient. The size and location of such MPAs should be selected using some approach to the process outlined for "deterministic" MPAs, though the final decision will have to be a matter of judgement within a fog of uncertainty⁵.

How Might a Fishery MPA Work

Whether a fishery MPA is designed as a careful solution to a specific management problem or as a "precautionary" measure, it will not benefit the fisheries unless it works -- in both biological and technical senses -- and preferably does so more efficiently than other management tools would. There are several mechanisms through which either kind of MPA might help, though each will only apply in specific biological and technical circumstances⁶.

Support Effective Spawning

Conventional marine fisheries management aims to keep the spawning stock biomass (SSB) of an exploited population high enough to ensure future recruitment, while primarily emphasizing efficient use of the growth potential of the recruits. This approach can, however, lead to a resource having no more than a minimal SSB, comprised predominantly of young adults. Since there is increasing evidence that, ton for ton, older adults may be more successful spawners, this approach has limitations, even if the assessments are accurate and the resulting regulations are obeyed⁷. Should the management process be deficient, of course, the SSB may be seriously depleted regardless of the biological characteristics of the resource.

It may, therefore, be desirable to adopt management techniques that protect some quantity of multi-year spawners (while still also protecting juveniles) and ensure that a proportion of the recruits survive long enough to enter this protected class. These objectives can be achieved by various means (including "slot limits" on fish lengths) but, for some species, "spawning reserve" MPAs are certainly a viable option. This supposes, of course, that the MPA is sufficiently large, relative to the annual movements of the species in question, for the closure to provide effective protection for the adults within its border. It also supposes that the offspring of those adults will recruit to fished areas outside the MPA. Since most marine resource species have planktonic eggs and/or larvae, this latter condition will usually be met -- provided that the MPA's boundaries are appropriately drawn.

One case for which such an MPA has been seriously suggested is the Bay of Fundy scallop resource. This is certainly recruitment-limited and there is some reason to think that that recruitment is itself limited by low spawning stock biomass. Because of the low movement of adult scallops (along with the low age at recruitment to the fishery, coupled to the high rates of fishing mortality on fished beds), closure of a "spawning reserve" MPA should produce major increases in egg production within the protected area⁸. Most of these eggs would settle as spat outside the reserve's boundaries, provided that the MPA was not excessively large. For this to be beneficial to the fishery, however, (1) the MPA must be large enough and contain rich enough scallop beds that the increase in (fertilized) egg production there is significant in terms of the overall size of the resource and (2) the MPA must be situated up-current of potential fishing grounds, such that the spat it produces can settle, grow and be fished.

"Spawning reserve" MPAs may increase the production of viable, fertilized eggs to a greater extent than they enhance SSB and population fecundity if:

• The spawning fish are vulnerable to disturbance (e.g. of their mating behaviour) by fishing activity,
• Effective egg fertilization requires high adult densities (as may occur with sedentary species such as clams),
• The eggs themselves are liable to destruction by fishing gear (as may occur with such bottom spawners as herring, capelin, lumpfish or whelks), and/or
• The condition of the seabed influences mating behaviour or egg survival and fishing gear can damage the bottom.

In the first and third of these cases, a seasonal closure of the spawning ground might be a preferable alternative to, and just as effective as, a year-round MPA. In the first, third and fourth, it might be sufficient to exclude only certain gear types from the "spawning reserve" MPA.

Enhance Juvenile Survival

Maximizing recruitment is critically important for most fisheries. For fisheries management, the most important aspect of this is usually maximizing pre-recruit survival (from the time of settlement to the seabed until recruitment to the fishery). Once again, there are various means of achieving this but, where discrete nursery grounds can be identified, their closure as fishery MPAs can be both efficient and effective. Indeed, nursery ground closures have a long an honourable history in fisheries management. The primary alternative approach, designing fishing gear that releases pre-recruits, can never be more than a partial success; exposure to the gear will always involve some degree of stress to a juvenile and may cause severe (if non-fatal) damage. Thus, even when gear controls appear to be effective, a nursery MPA may be preferable.

Maturing juvenile fish naturally move from their nursery areas to their adult habitat -- the fishing grounds (a movement known as "denatent migration"). Thus, the "flow" of resource out of such an MPA is assured -- provided that the area closed does truly represent a nursery for grounds elsewhere. Well-defined, inshore nursery areas are known for some European resources and for some in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Bight. Unfortunately, few Atlantic Canadian marine fishery resource populations have nursery grounds clearly separated from their adult habitat. Thus, it may not be easy to design effective, efficient nursery MPAs for this area -- protecting juveniles would be straightforward, if the MPA were large enough, but ensuring that they eventually recruited to the fished grounds would not be.

Export Excess Adults

MPAs based on the above principles would "work", in part, by supplying larvae or recruits to the fished grounds. There is a third type of "resource flow" which carries land mammals out of game sanctuaries and which has been suggested as a mechanism of reserves for (non-migratory) tropical reef fish resources. This type of "flow" requires that the MPA is large enough for its closure to result in the local build-up of resource biomass, through some combination of improved recruitment, survival and growth. It further requires that, once the biomass becomes high enough, individuals of resource species drift outwards from the MPA, in search of food, living space or (in those species which have them) territories.

An MPA based on this mechanism would differ from a nursery MPA since the area closed would necessarily be part of the adult habitat (though it might also have to include the corresponding nursery area, if the biomass within the MPA were to increase). It would differ from a spawning reserve MPA in that adult fish, rather than larvae, would be expected to flow out of the closed area. With this form of "flow", MPA size would be crucial since too small an area will prevent the local increase of biomass while too large a one will limit outward movement (by lowering the perimeter-length : enclosed-area ratio).

Whether reef fish reserves based on this principle actually work is currently a matter for scientific debate. (There is some evidence that fish actually migrate into the MPAs, avoiding disturbance caused by fishing activity outside.) With the more-mobile species primarily fished in Atlantic Canada, such a reserve would have to be very large if it was to allow a biomass increase within its boundaries. It is not known whether or not the rate of resource flow out of such a large MPA would sustain increases in resource availability on the fished grounds sufficient to compensate for loss of access to the closed area. For the principal Atlantic Canadian resource species, that seems unlikely.

Protect Habitat

Marine fisheries management has largely, and probably wrongly, ignored the role of fish habitat in resource production. Habitat, in its broadest sense, is unquestionably the foundation of that production. What is less sure is whether the agents of habitat change that are potentially controllable by fisheries agencies have a significant influence on production.

Marine ecosystems are predominantly influenced by conditions and events in the water column. Away from the coast, this water is usually safe from significant degradation, other than by such factors as global warming and long-range transport of pollutants (plus, perhaps, offshore hydrocarbon development). MPAs and other forms of local habitat management would have little effect on these factors, which could only be controlled⁹ through high-level government commitments to sustainable development throughout the global economy. Indeed, MPAs are singularly useless in the face of widespread impacts like global warming.

Benthic habitats are a different matter. It is still unclear how much, if any, influence such habitats have on the production of our major fishery resources. It is also unclear to what degree various human activities impact negatively (or indeed positively¹⁰) on the seabed/fish relationship. In contrast to the water column, however, the primary anthropogenic impacts on these benthic habitats are local and (on most commercial fishing grounds) are caused by the fishery itself. To the degree that fishing (or other offshore activities) do negatively affect the seabed, and to the degree that that negatively impacts resource production, closing sea areas to fishing should, therefore, improve that production¹¹ or at least prevent further degradation.

Such a closure, of course, need only relate to those types of fishing gear (or other activities) that cause the impacts on the bottom. Conversely, it would have to be a year-round closure; it is unlikely that habitat damage could recover during a closed season.

In evaluating these impacts on the seabed, it should be remembered that the juvenile stages of some resources may have very different relationships with the habitat than the adults do. For example, it has been suggested that young gadoids require the "cover" that abundant attached benthos provides, in order to evade predators. Equally, there is some reason to think that young scallops preferentially settle on bryozoan colonies, which are of no value to adult scallops and which are destroyed by scallop dragging.

It should also be remembered that MPAs designed to protect fish habitat might not supply any of the resulting resource production to fished areas. Without some clear understanding of how that production will "flow" outward (through larval drift, denatent migration or adult movement), it would be misleading to suggest that such an MPA will benefit the fisheries. Unlike some other MPA mechanisms, however, habitat MPAs could be of considerable benefit even if they were much smaller than the migratory circuits of the species they are designed to enhance -- if fishing feeding is greatly enhanced in areas of protected habitat adjacent to fished areas.

In coastal waters, of course, there is a much wider range of negative anthropogenic impacts on both the seabed and the water column, most of them land-based. Declaring MPAs in such areas might well be an appropriate way to focus public attention on these impacts, thus bringing existing habitat protection legislation to bear and limiting everything from road construction to effluent outfalls. To the extent that particular resources use such coastal areas, such MPAs should aid the fisheries, at the expense of other parts of the national economy.

Since our greatest present uncertainty surrounds the ecosystems that support fishery resources (rather than the single-species biology of the resources), "precautionary" MPAs should probably emphasize habitat protection. Since any human activity might have a negative impact on local habitats (e.g. by selectively removing large predators, disturbing bottom sediments, creating "acoustic pollution"), these MPAs may require complete or near-complete closures, rather than permitting selected types of fishing or other activities.

Protect Resource Genetics

Over the past 20 years, there has been increasing concern about artificial degradation of the genetic composition of fishery resource populations. These concerns have been of two kinds: depletion of some specialized sub-populations (thus reducing the genetic diversity within the overall population) and the selective removal of fast-growing individuals by the fishery. The latter may cause future generations to be the offspring of slow-growing individuals and thus to have (undesirable) genetic tendencies towards slow growth themselves.

While a system of MPAs might be designed to protect the genetic diversity within some stocks, this does not appear to be a very practical option -- too many small MPAs would be required. A spawning reserve MPA might ensure that future reproduction was dominated by individuals that had not been exposed to the selective effects of fishing -- though only if the spawners more-or-less remain within the MPA throughout their fishable lives. If those spawners are themselves the offspring of MPA-protected adults, this could prevent (and might even reverse) any genetic effects of that selection. It seems unlikely to do so, however, unless the majority of all future recruits to fished areas were spawned within reserves.

All suggestions of genetic benefits from MPAs should be carefully examined by qualified population geneticists, whose mathematical models seem often to reveal counter-intuitive results.

MPAs as Enforceable Management Measures

While there is no point in employing an ineffective management tool simply because the resulting regulations will be obeyed, the choice among the available, effective tools should consider their practicality, acceptability to the fishing industry and the degree to which they will be complied with -- an ideal management regime that is ignored on the water would have no point either. There is some evidence that fishery MPAs are easily understood, widely welcomed by fishermen and comparatively cheap to enforce.

MPAs in a Co-Management Context

Official MPAs have invariably been established by regulation or legislation. Except in limited coastal waters where they can be tightly policed, such MPAs are necessarily large -- they must be substantially wider than the buffer zones which practical enforcement will require within the official boundaries. Yet, as has been shown above, the size, shape and location of a fishery MPA can be critical to its success. In some cases, biological and technical factors will require a series of narrow MPAs, rather than a single wide one.

As our fisheries move towards co-management, with its promise of self-enforcement of agreed management measures, there will be potential for establishing many, small MPAs by local agreement. This might well be a key to the successful management of some coastal resources. Indeed, some of the most successful existing coastal MPAs began as "voluntary marine reserves" in much this way (though sometimes without the co-operation of commercial fishermen)¹².

It should not need to be said that MPAs, along with all other ocean (and terrestrial) management measures, should be introduced and maintained in a co-operative management environment. At the very least, this must be founded in industry/stakeholder consultation. To the greatest degree possible, the stakeholders should share in real authority over these management measures.

Secondary Fishery Benefits from MPAs

The above discussions have addressed direct benefits to the fisheries from MPAs. While alone they might not justify closing fishing grounds, there are also potential secondary benefits which might tip the balance of judgement in favour of the MPA tool. These could include:

• MPAs used for ecological research may lead to improved fishery management,
• Coastal MPAs may provide educational opportunities through which many people, both within and outside the fishing industry, could come to a greater understanding of marine resources and their conservation,
• MPAs and MPA management may focus public attention on the resources and their habitats, leading to more appropriate fishery and habitat policies, and to less damaging behaviour by fishermen and other groups, and
• Local management of coastal MPAs may give fishermen and their communities experience in co-operative management, which could later be used in co-management of the fisheries.

A Warning

Fisheries biologists in Atlantic Canada have long opposed the use of what are now termed MPAs in fisheries management. This has not been because closed areas were thought to be harmful. Rather, the principal problem in most marine fisheries management (particularly groundfish management) was, is and will remain the need to limit fishing mortality -- which is synonymous with limiting effective fishing effort¹³. Closures can alter where fishing effort occurs but, with mobile resource species, MPAs can never limit mortality -- the fleet simply catches the fish outside the closed area, albeit at greater fishing cost.

Yet, as experienced fishery managers know all too well, the fishing industry usually resists having its effort limited and, in doing so, resorts to every legal (and some illegal) means at its disposal. One tactic that has been used repeatedly (and is being used now by New England groundfish fishermen to avoid Amendment 7) is to advocate some alternative management measures (which will not have much impact on effort levels) and to suggest that those measures would be adequate for conservation. MPAs and other closures have long been favourite proposals. Inevitably and no matter how ineffective it may be, once such a measure has been introduced everyone waits for a few years before taking the next difficult decision -- while fishing effort continues to rise year by year. This cannot be an acceptable basis for fishery management.

Canada now has long, and not unsuccessful, experience of effort limitation in most of our fisheries. (It has not been limited to a sufficiently low level but that is a separate problem of political will.) This has taught us that, while such limitation remains the primary concern, alone it is not sufficient for effective management. For some fisheries, MPAs appear to be a valuable supplementary management tool. Even if they are needed and used as such, however, MPAs must never be allowed to be treated as an alternative to real and effective limitations on fishing mortality. They are not, and must not be allowed to appear as, a way for the fishing industry to escape the painful necessity to restrict its activities to sustainable levels.

MPAs in the Canadian Context: A Suggestion

Effective conservation of Atlantic Canada's marine fisheries resources requires an ecosystem approach. Some of the anthropogenic threats to the marine ecosystem operate on a regional (or even a global) scale. Many of the resources are themselves highly mobile and it will be difficult to delimit particular spawning or nursery grounds suited to special protection. Small, strictly-regulated MPAs will do little or nothing to help most of our fisheries.

Meanwhile, international protected-area management concepts are changing. In the past, protected conservation areas (on land as well as in the sea) have often been quite small, perhaps designed to preserve some fragment of natural habitat or the few individuals of an endangered species. This approach is now seen as inefficient, since most natural systems are dependent on a wide surrounding area; the ecosystem of the protected fragment cannot function when its surroundings have been heavily modified by mankind. This is true on land but it is far more so in the sea, since water is an exceptionally efficient transport medium. It is, for example, impossible to protect part of a river estuary if human activities throughout the river's watershed continue without restriction. Similarly, to protect fully the ecosystem of one part of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, we might need to protect the entire Magdalen Shallows and Northumberland Strait, plus Sydney Bight and the Laurentian Channel as far as Banquereau (to which key fish populations migrate in the winter) -- while also controlling activities throughout the Laurentian Great Lakes drainage to prevent excessive pollution or runoff diversion.

These concerns have recently led some MPA proponents to call for very extensive protected areas, within which there would be a number of zones -- some open to most human activities, some off-limits to anything by environmental monitoring and most with intermediate controls. Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been managed in such a way for many years, with apparent success.

In Canada, the federal government already has most of the legal powers required to set up such an extensive Protected Area and will acquire the rest under the Oceans Act. Indeed, our entire EEZ is already "managed" under various environmental regulations. Foreign mercantile shipping, for example, is required to meet Canadian environmental standards before entering our waters; ocean dumping is strictly controlled; offshore hydrocarbon exploration and development is tightly regulated; and, of course, the fisheries are subject to perhaps the most comprehensive management regime operated by any national.

If the future of MPAs lies in zonal management of large ocean areas, if the success of our fisheries requires wide-spread conservation of the resources and their supporting ecosystem, and if the Canadian government has the jurisdiction for such management throughout the EEZ, would it not be best simply to treat the entire EEZ as an MPA and proceed with zoning that would define areas needing particular kinds of protection? This would amount to little more than the status quo, though it would be a re-vitalized status quo. In addition to past and present ocean management measures, we would need to:

• Declare a few, relatively small MPAs with strict access restrictions, where such are required for non-fishery purposes (e.g. whale sanctuaries),
• Close such other areas to fishing as will best enhance the fisheries in the areas left open, if this is judged the most appropriate form of management for particular resources (e.g. scallop spawning reserves), and/or as "precautionary" MPAs,
• Strengthen all forms of environmental and conservation controls throughout the EEZ, in keeping both with our current realization that past controls have been inadequate and with the EEZ's new status as a large-scale MPA (e.g. tighten controls on tanker navigation and coastal development),
• Introduce zonal management throughout the EEZ, thus recognizing that activities (e.g. oil exploration or bottom dragging) which are acceptable in some areas may not be in others and applying that recognition in future management, and
• By multi-lateral and bi-lateral agreement as appropriate, or by uni-lateral action if necessary, extend this management regime into contiguous waters beyond our EEZ such that the entire northwest Atlantic ecosystem (or as much of it as influences our waters and their resources) enjoys an appropriate level of protection.

---

Summary

1. There are several justifiable reasons for establishing MPAs but, unless the protected areas are specifically planned as "fishery MPAs", such closures are unlikely to generate net benefits to the fisheries. Other forms of MPA may have very significant negative effects on the fisheries.

2. To be effective, a fishery MPA must not only lead to increased biomass within its boundaries but must also export substantial amounts of biomass and/or recruitment to fished grounds. To do so, its size, location and boundaries must be carefully matched to the biological characteristics of the protected resources and to the technical characteristics of the fishery for them.

3. Fishery MPAs should be seen as fisheries management tools. They should be employed where they appear to be the "best" way to meet management objectives.

1. The question should not be "Are MPAs useful in fisheries management?" but rather: "What are the problems confronting management? Which tools will best solve those problems?"

4. When considering the use of a fishery MPA, mangers should start by understanding the fishery and the biology of the resource. They should draw MPA boundaries that will meet management objectives, under the constraints set by the fishery and by resource biology. They should impose such restrictions on activities within the MPA as are needed to achieve the objectives. Other activities should not be restricted.

1. In some fishery MPAs, it may only be necessary to restrict certain fishing techniques or fishing for particular species. Other MPAs, with other objectives, may require prohibition of any kind of fishing (and most other human activities besides). Again, the focus should be on MPAs as tools.

5. One objective for which fishery MPAs appear well suited is a precautionary, and ecosystem-oriented, approach in the face of uncertainty. Considering our lack of firm understanding of our fisheries resources and their ecosystems, it might be prudent to place substantial areas off-limits to all fishing (and most other) activity.

1. Since "precautionary" MPAs are specifically required where knowledge is lacking, their location, size and boundaries can only be based on wise judgement, not on deliberate design. However, such MPAs will only generate direct benefits for the fisheries if their boundaries do match the characteristics of the particular resource and its fishery. Thus, all such knowledge as is available should be used in making the required judgements.

6. When their boundaries are appropriately drawn, fishery MPAs will work by one or more of five mechanisms:

1. Protecting a spawning reserve,
2. Protecting a nursery area,
3. Protecting an area with high population density from which adult fish move outward,
4. Protecting habitat (usually benthic habitat) which enhances fish production and/or survival, and/or
5. Protecting desirable genes within the exploited population.

7. While fishery MPAs can be valuable, they will always remain an inefficient tool for tackling the primary task of fisheries management, viz. : limiting fishing effort and fishing mortality. The proper use of fishery MPAs must never be allowed to expand into an excuse to avoid the effective effort limitation.

8. Optimal management of Atlantic Canada's fisheries resources requires wide-area habitat and resource-conservation management. The federal government already has, and exercises, legal authority for such management throughout the EEZ. Rather than concentrating on small MPAs with specific purposes, the fisheries would be better served by strengthening fisheries and environmental management throughout the EEZ, while also introducing a zonal approach that would allow different restrictions to apply in different areas.

 

Names are listed under modern county boundaries which, in some cases, may differ from the county of record at the time of loss.

 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sch/nat-harb_e.asp

 

 

 

Well maintained coastal infrastructure was integral to our past, it influences our present activities, and it provides creative and innovative opportunities for the future. Wharves and harbours are found all along our 7600 kilometers of coastline, contributing to provincial and local economies. In addition to the fisheries, this infrastructure supports a thriving tourism industry, boat building activities, public coastal access and is the foundation for numerous additional activities and spin off businesses. Harbours are meeting points along our coastline that provide opportunities for broad community economic development and the strengthening, and perhaps mending, of our social fabric. The disrepair and disappearance of our coastal infrastructure threatens the sustainability of our coastal communities and our vibrant coastline, on which our provincial economy and our Nova Scotian lifestyle depends.

 

Wharves and harbours are traditionally identified as infrastructure for the fishing industry; however, this infrastructure has much broader implications for coastal communities and our coastline. The provincial Community Development Policy asserts that:

 

“the term “community economic development” should be replaced by a broader term – one that talks about the social, environmental, and cultural futures of communities as well as their economies”.[2]  

 

A thriving and diverse coastline is critical to our social, environmental and cultural future. Harbours and wharves are a frequent feature of our coast as a community resource and as points of public access to the shore. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recognizes the important and evolving role of harbours in coastal communities:

 

 

The role of coastal infrastructure is much greater than a means to economic gain. This paper seeks to raise awareness in government and the general public of the broader role of harbours and wharves. The provincial Community Development Policy emphasizes focusing on local assets to find solutions to local problems, with government playing a supporting role.[4] The paper below provides evidence that our coastline and our coastal infrastructure is one of our province’s greatest assets and that support can come from many different government departments. In fact, all of us can play a role in encouraging and supporting sustainable coastal infrastructure, thriving coastal communities and a vibrant  The paper below provides evidence that our coastline and our coastal infrastructure is one of our province’s greatest assets and that support can come from many different government departments. In fact, all of us can play a role in encouraging and supporting sustainable coastal infrastructure, thriving coastal communities and a vibrant Nova Scotia coastline.  

 

This discussion paper:

 

 

·        provides evidence of the connection between sustainable coastal infrastructure, thriving coastal communities and a vibrant Nova Scotian coastline;

 

·        outlines the threats and challenges facing our vibrant coastline; and

 

·        explains the importance of a multi-sector approach to building on the asset of our coastline in a way that benefits rural coastal communities as well as the provincial economy.

 

 

Nova Scotia’s economy and social fabric is intricately linked to our coast and our access to the ocean. Our fisheries and tourism industry make substantial contributions to our economy. Access to the ocean is essential to Nova Scotian lifestyles, but is threatened by increased private ownership and changing ownership patterns. Our coastal infrastructure is central to maintaining our provincial economy, welcoming visitors and honouring our cultural roots. 

 

 

The Government of Canada’s 2002 Ocean Strategy states, “oceans are the lifeblood that support many coastal communities and are our highways to the world’s market places”.[5] Shellfish, which accounted for 84% of landed value in 2002,[6] is currently the most valuable product harvested off our coast and is largely landed at wharves in small, rural coastal communities. This represents a major portion of fisheries revenue and contributes to local economies when fishermen spend income from their catch at their local restaurants, stores and other businesses. Despite a decline in landings in the early 90’s, the value of our fishery continues to increase. Our ocean’s resources hold incredible economic potential if it is managed properly and we are able to access it from our rural coastal communities.[7] is currently the most valuable product harvested off our coast and is largely landed at wharves in small, rural coastal communities. This represents a major portion of fisheries revenue and contributes to local economies when fishermen spend income from their catch at their local restaurants, stores and other businesses. Despite a decline in landings in the early 90’s, the value of our fishery continues to increase. Our ocean’s resources hold incredible economic potential if it is managed properly and we are able to access it from our rural coastal communities. is currently the most valuable product harvested off our coast and is largely landed at wharves in small, rural coastal communities. This represents a major portion of fisheries revenue and contributes to local economies when fishermen spend income from their catch at their local restaurants, stores and other businesses. Despite a decline in landings in the early 90’s, the value of our fishery continues to increase. Our ocean’s resources hold incredible economic potential if it is managed properly and we are able to access it from our rural coastal communities. Shellfish, which accounted for 84% of landed value in 2002, is currently the most valuable product harvested off our coast and is largely landed at wharves in small, rural coastal communities. This represents a major portion of fisheries revenue and contributes to local economies when fishermen spend income from their catch at their local restaurants, stores and other businesses. Despite a decline in landings in the early 90’s, the value of our fishery continues to increase. Our ocean’s resources hold incredible economic potential if it is managed properly and we are able to access it from our rural coastal communities.

 

The harvesting sector includes over 5350 inshore boats that each provides approximately 2-4 jobs in a rural coastal community. [8] Each of these boats is a small business that creates jobs in rural areas and contributes to the local and provincial economy. The Economic Value of the Nova Scotian Ocean Sector Study states “the Nova Scotia fishing industry (harvesting and processing) is a major source of direct and indirect employment and income, and is the province’s leading source of export earnings”. The rural location of the fishing industry is an important element of the industry’s economic significance.[9]

 

Working wharves also present opportunities for growth and development. Harbour management groups, which are volunteer organizations tasked with managing and maintaining wharves and harbours, are looking for ways to diversify. Currently we find restaurants, galleries, shops and interpretive centres on and around wharves. Some harbours have enough land to diversify into housing, cottages or other developments. Small Craft Harbours encourages harbour diversification since it is a way for harbour management groups to generate revenue. Where fisheries do not exist year round, harbour management groups can also find innovative ways to use wharves in the off season, perhaps for community festivals, boat shows, or marine tours. 

 

 

In addition to the fishing industry, wharves and harbours play a major role in the provincial tourism industry. Each year, tourists flock to Nova Scotia to explore our coastline and visit our fishing communities. Much of Nova Scotia’s tourism and culture focus is inextricably linked to ocean activities and the natural environment, including fishing, sailing, nature tourism and beaches.[10] In 2003, the tourism industry generated in excess of $1 billion in revenues.[11] Wharves encourage the development of marine tourism operations like whale watching and bird watching. Small companies often cannot afford to build their own wharf, but having access to a wharf allows small businesses to develop and grow. Businesses at the wharf help to support local harbour management groups by paying for berthage space or volunteering on the harbour management board. In 2003, at least $2.7 million was generated by businesses that make direct use of wharves and harbours.[12] Community wharves also invite marine tourism as yachts and other pleasure boats look for places to pull in along the coast and experience Nova Scotian culture.  Wharves encourage the development of marine tourism operations like whale watching and bird watching. Small companies often cannot afford to build their own wharf, but having access to a wharf allows small businesses to develop and grow. Businesses at the wharf help to support local harbour management groups by paying for berthage space or volunteering on the harbour management board. In 2003, at least $2.7 million was generated by businesses that make direct use of wharves and harbours. Community wharves also invite marine tourism as yachts and other pleasure boats look for places to pull in along the coast and experience Nova Scotian culture.  Wharves encourage the development of marine tourism operations like whale watching and bird watching. Small companies often cannot afford to build their own wharf, but having access to a wharf allows small businesses to develop and grow. Businesses at the wharf help to support local harbour management groups by paying for berthage space or volunteering on the harbour management board. In 2003, at least $2.7 million was generated by businesses that make direct use of wharves and harbours. Community wharves also invite marine tourism as yachts and other pleasure boats look for places to pull in along the coast and experience Nova Scotian culture. In 2003, the tourism industry generated in excess of $1 billion in revenues. Wharves encourage the development of marine tourism operations like whale watching and bird watching. Small companies often cannot afford to build their own wharf, but having access to a wharf allows small businesses to develop and grow. Businesses at the wharf help to support local harbour management groups by paying for berthage space or volunteering on the harbour management board. In 2003, at least $2.7 million was generated by businesses that make direct use of wharves and harbours. Community wharves also invite marine tourism as yachts and other pleasure boats look for places to pull in along the coast and experience Nova Scotian culture.

 

However, tourist activities that do not make direct use of wharves and harbours also benefit from sustainable coastal infrastructure. Wharves are a central piece of the coastal environment tourists seek when visiting our province. Visitors want to eat at the restaurant, stay at the bed and breakfast, visit the interpretive centres, and explore the coastal walking trails on or connected to wharves.   

 

The tourism industry anticipates continuing growth in coastal based tourism. The Nova Scotia Tourism Partnership Council established a plan to double tourism revenues in 10 years. The third of 11 steps states:

 

 

The tourism industry and operators recognize the importance of wharves and harbours to their success and are active in ensuring their sustainability. Furthermore, one of the priorities of the provincial Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage is:

 

 

Though a growing industry with an increasing focus on the coast, tourism needn’t threaten the fishing industry and other traditional uses of wharves and harbours. In fact, tourism industry leaders argue that:

 

 

In addition to the fishing and tourism industries, coastal infrastructure also supports boat building business, which generated approximately $80 million in annual sales and 800-900 jobs in 2002.[16]

 

 

Wharves have been the social centre of coastal communities for centuries. Losing a wharf is as detrimental as losing a school, hospital or church since wharves are also public gathering points. Provincial government studies indicate that only 4% of our coast is publicly owned.[17] As public access to the coast decreases, wharves provide increasingly important access to beaches and shoreline for residents, visitors and tourists alike. Access to the ocean is part of our Nova Scotian culture. Wharves also provide inspiration for local artists and craftspeople that develops our cultural identity and recognition around the world. A vibrant coastline means that citizens and tourists have access to the coast and can celebrate all of what it has to offer. Culture, which includes our economic and social activities, is dynamic and constantly evolving; wharves and harbours root us to our past and provide opportunities in our ever-changing future. As public access to the coast decreases, wharves provide increasingly important access to beaches and shoreline for residents, visitors and tourists alike. Access to the ocean is part of our Nova Scotian culture. Wharves also provide inspiration for local artists and craftspeople that develops our cultural identity and recognition around the world. A vibrant coastline means that citizens and tourists have access to the coast and can celebrate all of what it has to offer. Culture, which includes our economic and social activities, is dynamic and constantly evolving; wharves and harbours root us to our past and provide opportunities in our ever-changing future.

 

 

Healthy coastal communities depend on the economic and social contributions of harbours and the ocean discussed above, but they also rely on a healthy and safe environment. Rising sea levels due to climate change will increase coastal erosion and threaten coastal communities, including buildings and roads. Sound harbour infrastructure prevents coastal erosion and damage.[18] Furthermore, proper maintenance and the use of proper materials lessen the impact of harbours on the environment. Finally, the designated access that harbours and wharves provide to the ocean helps protect saltwater marshes, dunes and other sensitive areas adjacent to harbours. With proper planning, government and coastal communities can be prepared to deal with environmental issues along the coast.  Furthermore, proper maintenance and the use of proper materials lessen the impact of harbours on the environment. Finally, the designated access that harbours and wharves provide to the ocean helps protect saltwater marshes, dunes and other sensitive areas adjacent to harbours. With proper planning, government and coastal communities can be prepared to deal with environmental issues along the coast. 

 

 

Residential coastal development is increasing in many coastal communities. This type of development can conflict with traditional activities at the wharf, for example, new residents may not appreciate the sounds and smells associated with a working wharf. Furthermore, developments can drastically increase taxes making it hard, or impossible, for long time residents to live along the coast and maintain working waterfronts. Changes are happening quickly in Nova Scotia; we require sound planning to ensure that our coastal communities and coastal infrastructure do not suffer as residential coastal developments increase.

 

 

In addition to small fishing businesses, tourism and other types of businesses in coastal communities will suffer with the closing of wharves and harbours. Tourists visit Nova Scotia to see coastal communities with active, working waterfronts. Many tourism businesses, including accommodations, stores, recreation, and restaurants benefit from being located on or near a wharf. Beyond tourism, as small fishing boats disappear and fewer people are employed in the community, there will be fewer wages earned in rural areas to support local businesses. Rural businesses, including fishing boats, tourism operations and other rural based businesses depend on working wharves to provide jobs and support the local economy.

 

Coastal infrastructure and related activities are affected by the environmental threats to our coastline. Climate change will result in many threats and challenges. Already our coast is sensitive to flooding and erosion, in fact, the Atlantic region has the greatest length of sensitive coast in Canada. Changes in our climate may result in rising sea levels due to the thermal expansion of water and the melting of the ice caps. Furthermore, experts predict that storm frequency and intensity will also increase as a result of climate change. This means larger, more powerful waves reaching the shoreline, increased magnitude of storm surges and a higher probability of storm surges occurring in conjunction with high tide.[20]

 

Environmental threats to harbours also include contaminated runoff that puts marine life at risk, including fish and plant species that play a role in our economy and our biodiversity. Residential development in sensitive coastal ecosystems is increasing rapidly along our coastline and exacerbating problems of coastal erosion, dune vegetation loss and habitat destruction.

 

 

Currently, Small Craft Harbours, a branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is responsible for the maintenance of federally owned wharves in Nova Scotia. A comprehensive review of DFO-SCH policy and program documents shows that years of budget restraint have resulted in wharves not being adequately maintained. This means high levels of risks for users. Despite 2002/2003 spending levels that exceed those in the early 1990’s before substantial cuts were made in the mid-1990’s, engineering experts stated that an additional $50 million is needed annually to maintain the integrity of core harbours. In 2004, 21% of the most active harbours registered substandard performance ratings according to SCH criteria. The reinvestment rate necessary to meet the replacement and maintenance needs of a harbour should be between 4.0% and 4.2% of total asset replacement value. This figure applies to new structures; wharves in Nova Scotia range from new to 50 year or older.   In 1999, the investment rate in Nova Scotia was 1.36%.[21] Since 1999, more programs for harbour reinvestment have been introduced and it is probable that the reinvestment rate has increased.[22]   Due to these constraints, SCH has concentrated its spending on repair, maintenance and replacement of capital on only the most active fishing harbours.    Due to these constraints, SCH has concentrated its spending on repair, maintenance and replacement of capital on only the most active fishing harbours.    Due to these constraints, SCH has concentrated its spending on repair, maintenance and replacement of capital on only the most active fishing harbours.  Since 1999, more programs for harbour reinvestment have been introduced and it is probable that the reinvestment rate has increased.   Due to these constraints, SCH has concentrated its spending on repair, maintenance and replacement of capital on only the most active fishing harbours. 

 

Another response to this situation was to introduce the Harbour Authority (HA) model in an effort to devolve responsibility for harbour maintenance and management to harbour users. Under this system, SCH retains ownership of the harbours and leases them to representative user groups that form a volunteer harbour authority. The HA takes over the management and daily operations of the harbour. If no one in the community expresses interest and the facilities are unsafe, the wharf is slated for demolition or total divestiture.[23]

 

SCH’s 2002-2005 business plan calls for inventory reductions of up to 50% of all harbours. As of October 2003, 120 harbours had been divested in Nova Scotia.[24] When SCH decides to divest of a wharf, community groups, municipalities and individuals are given the opportunity to take over the harbour infrastructure. Currently, in addition to the approximately 180 SCH wharves in When SCH decides to divest of a wharf, community groups, municipalities and individuals are given the opportunity to take over the harbour infrastructure. Currently, in addition to the approximately 180 SCH wharves in Nova Scotia, approximately 40 wharves were taken over privately (individuals or industry) or by Municipalities or Towns. Approximately 65 wharves are owned, managed and maintained by community organizations, many of which rely solely on volunteers and cannot approach SCH for resources or support.[25] These harbours may be used for fishing, recreation or a combination of both.  These harbours may be used for fishing, recreation or a combination of both. 

 

Often private ownership of wharves results in decreased access to or unsafe working conditions in the harbour. However, incentives exist to encourage privately owned wharves to be run in a public manner. The Province of Nova Scotia does not tax wharves that are publicly run[26]. This ensures access to wharves and the ocean while being privately owned and maintained. . This ensures access to wharves and the ocean while being privately owned and maintained.

 

 

DFO originally anticipated that harbour authorities would take over all operating costs by 2001. However, many harbour authorities are not financially self-sufficient and are not stabilized as community organizations.[27] Many harbour authorities and non-SCH harbour management groups, lack the capacity to manage the complex infrastructure of a harbour.  Many harbour authorities and non-SCH harbour management groups, lack the capacity to manage the complex infrastructure of a harbour. 

 

The government expected local volunteers with an interest in harbours to form the management authorities. These volunteers are often local independent fishermen whose livelihoods depend on a functioning harbour but may also include other community members. However, the business of fishing can keep fishermen from being able to consistently engage in community volunteerism because while working they are usually out on the water before daybreak and resting when community groups usually meet. The paradox is that without a functioning harbour, they are unable to fish and their livelihood and that of the entire community is at stake.

 

The devolution of harbour management to community groups has resulted in high levels of volunteer fatigue and burnout. A recent study found that wharves of all sizes and even those with paid staff, experience volunteer burnout. Some burnout was caused by a lack of organizational capacity or human resources to do the work. Other causes included navigating through government departments to find the information necessary to carry out their duties. These were factors in both SCH harbour authorities and community organizations that operate their wharves without SCH support. Surprisingly, harbour authorities that have operated the longest indicated the most severe levels of burnout; it seems that harbour management is not getting easier with time.[28]

 

 

In order for our coastline to be vibrant and our coastal communities to thrive, we must make an effort to sustain our wharves and harbours. By letting this coastal infrastructure deteriorate, we risk our fishing and tourism industries, our public access to the coast, and our unique coastal communities and Nova Scotian culture. However, the responsibility of sustaining coastal infrastructure no longer rests with one federal department. Already we see communities, non profit organizations and government departments working individually and collectively to create innovative and sustainable plans for our coastline and coastal infrastructure. These efforts, and most importantly, these partnerships, will ensure sustainable coastal infrastructure, thriving coastal communities and a vibrant coastline for many generations. 

 

 Discussion questions

 

1.                  What do you see as the greatest opportunities for our coast and our coastal infrastructure?

 

2.                  What do you see as the greatest threats?

 

3.                  Do you agree with the position put forward by this paper that we all have a role to play in ensuring sustainable coastal infrastructure, thriving coastal communities and a vibrant coastline? 

 

a.      What is the role of various government departments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels?

b.      What is the role of communities?

c.      What is the role of non profit organizations?

d.      Who else needs to be involved?

---

Important commercial and recreational species of fish and shellfish need quality habitat to thrive. Waterfront construction must be planned to help protect the areas where these species live and grow. It's that simple - no habitat, no fish.
Impacts on Fish and Fish Habitat
Fish and shellfish have specific environmental needs. They cannot survive in an area if the characteristics of their habitat change beyond their tolerance.
Fish, shellfish, aquatic insects, and their habitats can be severely affected by waterfront activities and construction in waterways and along coastlines:

• Construction-related chemicals, machinery fuels and lubricants, and wood preservatives can be toxic to marine life.
• Infilling eliminates suitable aquatic wildlife habitat.
• Wharves, breakwaters and causeways change water current patterns, and can cause erosion and sedimentation severely changing habitat conditions.
• Suspended sediment or silt smothers fish, shellfish eggs, and insect larvae. It reduces the production of food organisms for recreational and commercial species and transforms important, productive habitat into aquatic wastelands.

Applying for a Permit
Before building a wharf or any other structure below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of any coastal waters, you must have a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. If you follow standard guidelines, the application can be processed at the Department of Natural Resources office near your property.
Your permit application must include the location of your property and information about what you want to construct. In most instances, the land covered by water is Crown land, and various acts and policies apply to the use of the land.
For construction in fresh water, you must contact the Department of Environment and Labour.
Guidelines
The guidelines outlined below are designed to accommodate most requests. However, it is recognized that they may not meet the requirements of special situations that occur along Nova Scotia's diverse shorelines. Where the physical environment demands construction beyond the scope of these guidelines, you must make special application at your local Department of Natural Resources office. Your application will be subject to review by, and approval from, other departments and an environmental asssessment may be required.
Wharves and boat ramps must be constructed of materials which do not leach toxins and are free of oil, grease and other contaminants. Wood treated with creosote or pentachlorophenol (PCP) may not be used.
Wharf Construction
The wharf must not exceed 3.66 metres (12 feet) in width and 30.48 metres (100 feet) in length (beyond the OHWM).
The wharf may be supported by cribs or poles. Infilling is not permitted, with the exception of clean, non-toxic material from a non-waterbody source, used to fill cribwork.
A space of at least 1.22 metres (4 feet) must be maintained between any supporting poles. Crib structures are not to be sheathed in below the ordinary high water level.
Crib dimensions may not exceed 3.66 metres (12 feet) in any direction.
An open span of at least 3.05 metres (10 feet) must be maintained between each crib.
The first crib must be located either entirely on the landward side of the OHWM or at least 3.05 metres (10 feet) from, and on the seaward side of, the OHWM. The first crib is not permitted to straddle the OHWM.
Boat Ramp Construction
The boat ramp must not exceed 4.57 metres (15 feet) in width. Total coverage of the bed of the body of water below the OHWM by all portions of the boat ramp must not exceed 27.9 square metres (300 square feet). Existing rocks within the proposed ramp area may be moved aside, by hand or machine, provided they are not removed from the waterbody.
Repair To Existing Wharves
A permit is required to repair an existing wharf, unless
- the work is limited to that portion of the wharf which is above the level of ordinary high water; and
- the work will not substantially increase the size of the wharf.
In any event, wharf repairs must be carried out in accordance with Department of Natural Resources general guidelines. Conact your local Department of Natural Resources office for further information.
Breakwater Construction
Solid breakwaters can have a significant impact on the coastal environment. The preferred method for creating shelter water for a craft is to place baffles between the spans of a crib or poles of a constructed wharf, or to place sheathing as prescribed by a permit.
Infilling
Infilling in front of recreational or residential properties is generally not permitted.
An application to infill may be considered if the project is likely to result in a public benefit. The application would be subject to extensive review by staff of the Department of Natural Resources. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) would also review the project to identify any possible navigation and fish habitat concerns. In most instances, the proponent is required to purchase the infilled land if the project is approved.
Bank Protection
Bank protection work which is carried out entirely above the ordinary high water mark of your property does not require a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. However, you are responsible for implementing proper erosion control measures to protect the aquatic environment from siltation.
If the bank protection requires placement of material, or operation of machinery, below the ordinary high water mark, you are required to obtain a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The project may also be subject to review by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada).
Moorings
Moorings must be constructed of materials which do not leach toxins and are free of oil, grease and other contaminants.
Owners of waterfront property are generally permitted to place one mooring in front of and within 60 metres (197 feet) of their property, without a permit. Other persons who wish to place moorings within this area generally require the consent of the owner of the upland property and a permit from the Department of Natural Resouces.
Moorings located more than 60 metres (197 feet) from the shoreline may be permitted without the consent of the upland owner, at the discretion of the Department of Natural Resources.
Disclaimer / Further Information
The above is provided for general information purposes only. For more detailed information, or to obtain an application for construction on coastal submerged lands, please contact any Department of Natural Resources office. (For construction activities in fresh water, please contact the Department of Environment and Labour).