Towards a Brighter Fishing Future

TOWARDS A BRIGHTER FISHING FUTURE:

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS TO MEASURE OUTCOMES OF THE

T’AAQ-WIIHAK FISHERIES

ANNIE MERRITT

B.A. & Sc., McGill University, 2009

A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

School of Community and Regional Planning

We accept this project as conforming to the required standard

......

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2013 © Annie Evelyn Merritt, 2013 Acknowledgements

I would like to express a very heartfelt thank you to community liaison Katie Beach, Professor Evelyn Pinkerton, and project supervisor Timothy McDaniels, all of whom provided me guidance at different stages along the way in writing this final project and preliminary papers. You each lent me different and very valuable perspectives which are woven throughout this report from beginning to end.

I am also sincerely grateful to my second reader Don Hall and to all those members of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations who generously shared their insights and perspectives with me and who made this report possible. I hope that your orange T’aaq-wiihak flags will be flying on your fishing boats for many years to come!

And to Ryan. For letting me talk to you about fisheries all the time and providing good chuckles when needed.

Executive Summary This report has been written to support the efforts of the Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Hesquiaht, Ehattesaht/Chinehkint, and Mowachaht/Muchalaht Nations to re-establish the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries, whereby the Nations’ fishers are granted permission to fish by their hereditary chief. The development of these fisheries has followed from the recognition of the Aboriginal rights of these Nuu-chah-nulth Nations to harvest and sell fish from their territories in the waters off of the West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI). The purpose of this document, which was prepared for the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, is to develop a set of social and economic indicators for monitoring the outcomes of the T’aaq- wiihak fisheries. In the near term, this indicator suite may be used to navigate ongoing negotiations surrounding the terms of the fishery. In the long-term, it may also be used by the T’aaq-wiihak Nations as a tool used for informing decision-making and management. To contribute towards the development of an indicator suite, this report answers the following questions: 1) what key community objectives are held by fishers, fishery managers, and other members of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations, and how can these be translated into locally suitable socio-economic indicators? 2) What are the best practices regarding the use of indicators for monitoring social and economic variables in the fishery indicator literature? An integrative approach is taken to indicator development, combining top-down, literature based methodologies with bottom-up, community-driven methodologies in order to arrive at a set of indicators that are cost-effective, theoretically sound, and consistent with T’aaq-wiihak Nation members’ values and priorities.

iii

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Background and Context ...... 3 2.1 Community Profiles of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations ...... 3 2.1.1 Geography ...... 3 2.1.2 Demographics ...... 4 2.1.3 Governance...... 6 2.2 Historic and present-day processes mediating Nuu-chah-nulth Fisheries access ...... 7 2.2.1 Historical participation of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in the WCVI fishery ...... 7 2.2.2 Present Day Litigation and the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries...... 10 3.0 Indicator Use and Applicability in the Context of the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries...... 14 3.1 Short-term indicator purpose...... 14 3.1.1 Use of Indicators in Public Education and Communication...... 14 3.1.2 Use of Indicators in Court Proceedings ...... 15 3.2 Long-term Indicator Purpose ...... 17 4.0 Best Practices for the Use and Development of Social and Economic Indicators in Fisheries- Dependent Communities ...... 17 5.0 T’aaq-wiihak Indicator Development: Methodology ...... 19 5.1 Community-Based Objective Identification Process ...... 20 5.1.1 Interview Methodology ...... 20 5.1.2 Secondary Data Collection ...... 21 5.2 Literature-Based Criterion Identification Process ...... 21 6.0 T’aaq-wiihak Indicator Development: Results ...... 23 6.1 Community Objectives ...... 23 6.2 Literature-Based Criteria ...... 34 6.2.1 Fisheries Indicator Criteria...... 34 6.2.2 Community Well-Being Criteria ...... 36 6.3 T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Socio-economic System Scope ...... 39 7.0 Recommended Framework for the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicators ...... 42 7.1 Short-term Indicator Framework...... 43 7.2 Mid- to Long-Term Indicator Framework ...... 44

7.2.1 Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework Description ...... 45 7.2.2 Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework: Rationale for Use ...... 47 8.0 Recommended Indicators for Use in Measuring the Outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries ...... 48 8.1 Indicator Types Used...... 48 7.1.1 Natural Measures...... 49 8.1.2 Constructed Measures ...... 49 8.1.3 Proxy Measures ...... 50 8.2 Recommended Indicator Suite ...... 50 9.0 Data Collection Considerations ...... 56 9.1 Measuring Criteria for which Indicator Data are Not Yet Available ...... 56 9.1.1 Widely-Issued Surveys to Fishers and T’aaq-wiihak Nation Members ...... 56 9.1.2 Structured Interviews Issued to Targeted Fisheries Experts ...... 57 9.2 Measuring Criteria for Which Indicator Data are Available ...... 58 9.2.1 Existing Data Sources ...... 58 9.2.2. Addressing Limitations of Data ...... 58 10.0 Next Steps ...... 59 10.1 Remaining Indicator Development Tasks ...... 59 10.2 Use of Targets and/or Baseline Data ...... 60 10.3 Data Collection Partnerships ...... 61 10.4 Communication of Indicators ...... 61 11.0 Conclusion ...... 63 Sources Cited ...... 64 Appendix A: T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicator Report Terms of Reference ...... 70 Appendix B: Secondary Sources Used ...... 71 Appendix C: Objectives Expressed in Secondary Data Sources ...... 72 Appendix D: Interview Coding of Community Objectives ...... 74 Appendix E: Literature-Based Indicators Adapted to the T’aaq-wiihak Context ...... 76 Appendix F: Community Well-Being Data and Sources ...... 77

List of Figures Figure 1: Indicator Design and Collection Process……………………………………………………………………….…………..3

Figure 2: The Ha-houlthee (territories) of the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’wiih………………..………………………………….4

Figure 3: Influence Diagram Depicting Scope of T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Socio-economic System………….41

Figure 4: T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicator Framework for Short-Term Use…………………………………………….43

Figure 5: Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework for Long-Term Use……………………………………………….45

Figure 6: Sustainability Definitions Used in the Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework…………………..46

List of Tables Table 1: Population of Nuu-chah-nulth Communities Developing the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries………………..5

Table 2: Comparison of major elements, 2012 Suuhaa Management Plan and

DFO Implemented Fishery…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Table 3: Widely Used Criteria in Fisheries Indicator Reports with Applicability to the

T’aaq-wiihak Context………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………….….35

Table 4: “External Variables” Indicators………………………………………………………………..……………………………….51

Table 5: “Fishery Attribute” Indicators………………………………………………………………..……………………………..….51

Table 6: “Community Sustainability” Indicators………………………………………………………………..…………………..52

Table 7: “Institutional Sustainability” Indicators…………………………………….………………………………..…………….53

Table 8: “Socio-economic Sustainability” Indicators………………………………………………………………..…………….54

Table 9: Potential Data Collection Partnerships……………………………………………………………………..………………61

Towards a brighter fishing future: Social and economic indicators to measure outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries

1.0 Introduction

The five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations of Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Hesquiaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht and

Ehattesaht/Chinehkint (hereafter, “the T’aaq-wiihak Nations”) are presently at a critical juncture in their efforts to establish rights-based fisheries in their fishing grounds off of the West Coast of Vancouver

Island (WCVI). Following a 2009 ruling by the BC Supreme Court recognizing their Aboriginal right to harvest and sell fish in the marketplace, an important opportunity has arisen to re-establish the traditional T’aaq-wiihak fishery1 as the cultural, social, and economic foundation of these five Nations.

However, the realization of this goal hinges on a variety of factors. Most immediately, it will depend upon the final outcomes of the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the case and upon the results of any negotiations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that occur in the interim. In the long-term, pending a favourable ruling, the successful re-establishment of the fishery will require strategic planning and management, including the ongoing monitoring of progress towards desired outcomes produced by the fishery.

In response to these present and forthcoming needs, the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and Nuu-chah-nulth

Tribal Council (NTC) have identified the development of a set of social and economic indicators as a strategic step in equipping the T’aaq-wiihak Nations with the tools necessary to navigate legal challenges, educate the broader public about the outcomes of the fishery, and make informed decisions with regards to the management of the fishery. Indicators have been defined as “measurable descriptor[s], quantitative or qualitative, of normative interest which facilitate assessment of the past,

1 “T’aaq-wiihak”, or “fishing with permission of the hereditary chief” refers to the Nuu-chah-nulth governance and fishery management structure.

1 current, or future state or performance of [a system]”.2 These versatile tools have come to be used

across a wide variety of research and policy areas, and are likely to serve the T’aaq-wiihak Nations well

in both the communication of fishery outcomes and to inform policy-making. Their use by the T’aaq- wiihak Nations is also very well aligned with the guidelines for fisheries management delineated by the

United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fisheries Resources Division, which encourages their use as a tool for describing and assessing the state of sea resources, fisheries activity, and trends regarding the attainment of social, environmental, and economic sustainability.3

This report is the product of research prepared for the NTC, which sought to determine a suitable set of indicators for monitoring the social and economic outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries. As outlined in

the Terms of Reference agreed upon by the researcher and the NTC, indicator development was

informed by the fisheries socio-economic indicator literature and guided by consultation with the T’aaq- wiihak Nations’ leaders, fishers, and fishery managers in order to ensure that indicators would be well- suited to the local context. For a complete summary of the Terms of Reference, see Appendix A. The indicator development process used in this report can be described as falling into three phases, which are summarized in Figure 1 (below): Objective and Criteria Identification, Indicator Selection, and Data

Assembly. While the process represented in this figure is portrayed as being linear, it is likely to be iterative over time. Correspondingly, the recommended indicator suite itself should not be perceived as fixed, but rather as an adaptable set that can be adjusted as the terms of the fishery and the priorities of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations evolve. It is hoped that the findings of this report will thereby provide a starting point for indicator development and monitoring to serve both the immediate and long-term needs of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations.

2 Hodge (1995) 3FAO Fisheries Resources Division (1999)

Figure 1: Indicator Design and Collection Process

Indicator Selection •Assembling available •Establishing context data to correspond to •Assessing Nations' indicators objectives using •Assembling list of •Delineating potential interviews and potential criteria collection methods for secondary data based on: unavailable data •Review of criteria used •literature •Identifying potential in fisheries •community data collection management and objectives partnerships community well-being •Recommending reports indicators to correspond to criteria Objective & Criteria Data Assembly Identification

2.0 Background and Context

2.1 Community Profiles of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations

2.1.1 Geography The Ha-houlthee (territories, authorities, and jurisdictions of the Hereditary Chiefs) of the Nuu-chah- nulth Ha’wiih (Hereditary Chiefs) are located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI), and extend over 300 km from Point-no-Point in the south to Brooks Peninsula in the North4 (see Figure 2). The

T’aaq-wiihak Nations represent five of the fourteen Nuu-chah-nulth Nations, all of which are represented by the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. Among the T’aaq-wiihak Nations, the Ahousaht,

Hesquiaht, and Tla-o-qui-aht Nations are centrally located in the Clayoquot Sound region, and the

Mowachaht/Muchalaht and Ehattesaht are located to the North, in the Nootka Sound and Zeballos Inlet

4 NTC (2011)

3 regions, respectively.5 The geographical regions occupied by these Nations are superimposed upon the

Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District (ACRD) boundaries to the south and the Strathcona Regional District

(SRD) boundaries to the north. 6 Most of the village areas are located beside the sea and remain highly

remote with access limited in some cases to transportation by boat.

Figure 2: The Ha-houlthee (territories) of the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’wiih

Source: NTC, 2013

2.1.2 Demographics There is some variation in the population size, but the number of members living on reserve does not

exceed 1000 people for any of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations (see Table 1). In many communities, the

5Mowachat/Muchalaht First Nation (2010); Dewhirst (2012). 6Van Struth Consulting et al. (2003)

4 number of registered members living away from home7 is greater than the number of members residing on reserve—among all 14 Nuu-chah-nulth nations, 60% of members currently live away from home.8 In many cases, these members have moved off-reserve in search of employment opportunities in spite of close community ties and a valued connection to the Nation’s territories.9

Table 1: Population of Nuu-chah-nulth Communities Developing the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Community Population Size on Registered Total Population Growth Reserve Membership (2001-2006)

Tla-o-qui-aht 3452 9261 21.5%2

Hesquiaht 1102 6571 37.8%2

Ahousaht 6612 1,8511 18.7%2

Mowachaht/Muchalaht 2262 N/A 25.6%2

Ehattesaht 1503 3813 -11%2

Source: 1) Arbour et al., 2008 2) Statistics Canada, 2006 3) Ehattesaht community population poll, 2011

Recent census data shows that the population size of First Nations communities is growing at a much greater rate than surrounding WCVI regions. From 2001-2006, average population growth for the T’aaq- wiihak Nations was 18.5%. These rates are comparatively high relative to the growth experienced in the

ACRD as a whole, which was only 1%.10 The young population of the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations will translate into a need for many new jobs on the reserves and surrounding areas as many young people reach the age of entry into the workforce.

7 “Away from home” is a term that was conceived by the NTC as an alternative to “urban” or “off-reserve” in an effort to use language that is less exclusionary (Atleo, 2010). 8 Atleo (2010) 9 Many members of the Nation remain on Vancouver Island, living in larger communities such as Port Alberni and Victoria, making the possibility of returning to their home communities feasible should new opportunities arise. 10StatsCan(2006)

2.1.3 Governance The present-day governance of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations is based on a dual system of elected councillors

(a product of the Indian Act), and hereditary chiefs, called “Ha’wiih”. The latter governance structure is based on a traditional system whereby the Ha’wiih have the authority to manage the land and sea resources within their Ha-houlthee (territories, authorities, and other jurisdictions) with the assistance of various advisors and keepers of customary law.11 Historically, any fishing practices within the Ha- houlthee required permission of the Ha’wiih, who held the responsibility of watching over and ensuring the health of the land and sea in this territory.12 In return for being granted permission to fish, fishers would provide a portion of the catch to the Ha’wiih, under a system of Pa’ukt, much like a taxation system.13 This management role is largely incompatible with the prevailing federal fisheries regime,

which requires licenses to be sought from federal authorities and specific fishing grounds to be fished

that do not coincide with the Nations’ territories. However, an ideal T’aaq-wiihak fisheries arrangement would complement governance structures and permit the Ha’wiih to take on former resource management roles. There is a keen interest among the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in achieving this outcome.

Presently, the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations participate in the management of the natural resources within their territories through a variety of avenues. All 14 Nuu-chah-nulth Nations are presently members of

Uu-a-thluk, an organization focused on the collective management of aquatic resources in the WCVI region. This organization was established in 2005 with financial support from the Canadian government, based on the recognition of the need for cross-sectoral aquatic resource management. The Nuu-chah- nulth Nations are also represented on West Coast Aquatic, Canada’s first co-management body under the federal Oceans Act (1996).

11Atleo Sr., in Arbour et al. (2008). 12 Uu-a-thluk Strategic Plan (2006) 13Beach, Katie, pers.comm.(2012).

2.2 Historic and present-day processes mediating Nuu-chah-nulth fisheries access

2.2.1 Historical participation of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in the WCVI fishery

Historically, the fisheries played a central role for the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations, as they represented a

source of employment for an estimated 95% of Nuu-chah-nulth men.14 The Nuu-chah-nulth fished a wide variety of species, including whale, halibut, herring, crabs, and prawns, in addition to all local species of salmon15. Each of these species were closely managed through the system of T’aaq-wiihak.

The Nations’ highly diverse fishing practices remained largely unaltered until the late 1890s, when village economies began shifting to the harvesting of fish and sea otter and First Nation members began working as employees of European settlers.16 The first half of the 20th century was characterized by increasingly intensified fishing activity accompanying the large scale commercialization of the WCVI fishery as the construction of the salteries and canneries permitted seafood products to be sold in markets outside of the region.17

By the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that intensified fishing pressures were threatening major

stocks. In 1969, in an effort to reduce overcapitalization in the fishery and conserve fisheries resources,

the federal government introduced limited entry licensing to the salmon fleet under the Davis Plan.

Over the following two decades, limited entry was applied to a number of other fisheries, including roe

herring, abalone, shrimp, halibut, sablefish, spawn-on-kelp, and geoduck.18 This policy had a significant impact on the number of First Nations fishers who were able to participate in the fishery. One reason for this reduced involvement was the fact that criteria to qualify for renewal limited entry license favoured full-time fishers with greater catch volumes. These regulations excluded First Nations fishers who had

14 “T’aaq-wiihak Salmon Fishery Management Plan” (2012) 15 Hendricks (2005) 16Mak et al.(2010) 17Mak et al. (2010) 18 Gough (2000)

7 engaged in fisheries on a part-time basis to supplement other sources of income, as well as fishers who had fished moderately to extend their fishing season.19 Furthermore, many of those fishers who had

caught a sufficient amount of fish to qualify for a renewable license were unable to provide the

necessary supporting documentation due to communication and literacy barriers.20

First Nations participation in the commercial fishery in the years following the implementation of the

Davis Plan was notably reduced—in the decade following its introduction, the number of vessels that

were either owned or operated by First Nations people fell from 910 to 670.21 In addition to reducing

the number of First Nations fishers directly employed in the fishery, the processing plant closures that

accompanied the implementation of the Davis Plan also led to increased unemployment, with fishing

and fish processing employing less than half the number of First Nations people in comparison to two

decades before the Davis Plan.22 The impact of these job losses was especially acute due to the relative

immobility of many First Nations people resulting from their strong connection to place and

community.23 In addition to incurring extensive social and economic costs to the First Nations involved

in the commercial fishery, the Davis Plan was largely unsuccessful in curbing overcapacity.24

In a renewed effort to reduce the size and capacity of the fishing fleet, the federal government

introduced an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system beginning in the mid-1980s, which applied to a variety of fisheries including geoduck, sablefish, and halibut.25 This system is premised on the principle

of maximized economic efficiency, whereby the larger and more efficient fishers would buy out the least

efficient fishers. Quotas under this system are fully transferrable, meaning they can be bought, sold, or

19Turning Point Initiative (2004) 20Beach, pers. comm.(2012) 21 Gough (2000) 22 Newell (1993) 23Pearse (1981) 24Pearse (1981) 25Scholz et al. (2004).

8 leased without restriction.26 ITQs have been detrimental to small scale fishers and fishery-dependent communities including the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations.27 Nevertheless, the privatization of fisheries access through ITQs has gained prominence, with a great deal of support from the fishing companies who stand to benefit substantially in the initial allocation of rights as well as governments seeking to cut costs by shifting management responsibilities to fishers and fishing companies.

Due to the drastic fluctuations in salmon stock and the challenges this posed to management under the ITQ system, an alternative was sought and in 1996, the Mifflin Plan was introduced. This plan consisted of three features: a license retirement program, single gear licensing, and area licensing, which restricted fishers to one of two seine areas or one of three gillnet or troll areas.28 Under this plan, a 50% reduction in the salmon fleet was achieved through buy-backs and license stacking.29 Many First

Nations fishers participated in the buy-back program, as it presented an attractive offer for exiting the commercial fishery in light of the decreased abundance of salmon and the unfavourable market for salmon that had resulted from the introduction of salmon aquaculture.30 Following the implementation of the Mifflin Plan, the number of First Nations-held AI seine licenses decreased from 65 to 19, while the number of AI troll licenses decreased from over 500 to less than 20. 31

Collectively, the Davis Plan and Mifflin Plan, in combination with the introduction of ITQs, have produced a lasting negative impact on First Nations employment in the WCVI commercial fishery.

Presently, only 2% of all B.C. quota licenses are owned locally, with the remainder owned by individuals living outside of the region, typically in urban centres.32 This trend is not likely to change under the

present fisheries regime, as the cost of leasing quota or buying out the licenses of retiring local fishers

26Scholz et al. (2004) 27Scholz et al. (2004) 28Scholz et al. (2004) 29 Turning Point Initiative (2004) 30 Burke (2010) 31 Wood (2001) 32Scholz et al. (2004)

9 remains prohibitively high for the vast majority of local residents seeking to enter the fishery. The result of these barriers, in combination with the lack of alternative sources of employment, is that the Nuu- chah-nulth and neighbouring rural WCVI communities face very weak economic circumstances in spite of their adjacency to one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world.33

2.2.2 Present Day Litigation and the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries In an effort to restore participation in the fishery and secure greater control over the management and use of resources within their territories, the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations have been actively pursuing legal action against the Federal government since the early 2000s. In 2009, the BC Supreme Court affirmed the Aboriginal right of the five T’aaq-wiihak Nations to harvest and sell fish from their territories.34,35

This ruling, which was issued under the Ahousaht et al. court case, was based on the strong evidence of

historical participation in fishing and trade in fisheries resources. It was ruled that the exercise of this

right applies to all rivers, sounds and inlets, as well as ocean waters extending nine miles offshore.36

The judge also ruled that Canada’s existing fisheries regime represented a prima facie infringement of the Aboriginal rights of the five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations37, but suspended her final ruling regarding whether Canada had failed to justify this infringement for a period of two years. This time was to be used by the federal government and the plaintiff Nations to engage in negotiations for the purpose of developing and implementing Nuu-chah-nulth rights-based fisheries.38

Since this time, the federal government has pursued an appeal of the 2009 Supreme Court ruling, first in

the BC Court of Appeals and subsequently in the Supreme Court of Canada. This appeal was heard by

the BC Court of Appeal— after the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case—in mid-February,

33The abundance of fishery resources is evidenced by the fact that the WCVI commercial fishery alone generates $56 million in wages and a total revenue of $160 million (Gislasson, 2007). 34 Isaac et al. (2009) 35A greater number of Nuu-chah-nulth Nations were initially involved in the court case; several Nations were required to withdraw in order to secure their eligibility for treaty settlement. 36 “Litigation victory”, 2009 37 Smith, 2012 38“Victory for Nuu-chah-nulth”, 2009

2013. Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the matter, the case was redirected to the BC Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of a ruling on a related Aboriginal fishing case, Lax Kw’alaams

Indian Band v. Canada.39 In a decision released on July 2, 2013, the BC Court of Appeal subsequently

denied Canada’s appeal, ruling again in favour of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations.40 However, it is likely that this decision will be the subject of an application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.41

Concurrent to these legal proceedings surrounding the federal government’s appeal, the Nations filed

an intention to proceed with the Ahousaht et al. court case anew in order to resolve the issue of

justification of infringement on the Nations’ Aboriginal right to fish following unsatisfactory progress in

negotiations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) within the two year time period

allotted.42 Although the legal proceedings surrounding the fishery remain ongoing, the five Nuu-chah- nulth Nations have remained committed to negotiating and submitted interim fisheries proposals for the consecutive summers of 2011 and 2012, with the summer of 2012 marking the launch of the first interim fishery since the 2009 court ruling.

The 2012 interim fishery operated for 10 weeks between July 18th and September 30th, 2012.43 This fishery was the product of an extended negotiation period, which culminated with the Nations issuing a proposal to the DFO in February 2012 (in the form of the 2012 T’aaq-wiihak Salmon Fishery

Management Plan), and the DFO responding with a counter-offer, made to the Nations in May, 2012.

The T’aaq-wiihak Nations had hoped that this fishery would accomplish two things: permit a notable increase in allocations and access and allow the Nations to test-run flexible fishing approaches outside of the existing DFO regulations and policies. The parameters of such an approach were laid out in detail in the Nations’ 2012 T’aaq-wiihak Salmon Fishery Management Plan. However, the counter-offer made

39“Trial Updates”, 2012 40 “B.C. Court of Appeal Reconsiders” 41 “B.C. Court of Appeal Reconsiders” 42 “Nations file in court”, 2012 43“2012 Suuhaa Fishery Post-Season Review”

11 by the DFO fell short of the proposal made by the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in both regards. The terms of the agreement were nevertheless accepted by the Nations because the timing of the DFO’s counter-offer left insufficient time to conduct further negotiations and the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ leaders felt it was important to act on the opportunity, however limited, to provide fishery employment and test-drive aspects of a rights-based fishery.

The 2012 interim fishery arrangement comprised two main components—an allocation of salmon species, including chinook (suuhaa) and chum (hinkuuas), as well as an allocation of non-salmon species, including halibut, red sea urchin, sablefish, lingcod, and rockfish. The salmon fisheries allocation arrangement represented an alternative to the existing fisheries regime—rather than being based on individual quota and limited entry licensing, it was based on a set allocation of fish which was reallocated from retiring fishers through voluntary buyback programs and divided between the five

T’aaq-wiihak Nations. The specific number of salmon that were allocated through the 2012 interim fishery was based on a percentage share of the Canadian Commercial Total Allowable Catch (CTAC) for each individual species. In contrast, the DFO proposal for non-salmon species was limited only to existing license conditions. The offer included two red sea urchin licenses, ten halibut licenses, and four rockfish licenses as well as a quota of approximately 0.75% Halibut CTAC , 0.45% Sablefish CTAC, 6.99%

Lingcod CTAC, and 0.17% Dogfish CTAC. For a complete overview of the differences between the T’aaq- wiihak Nations’ 2012 Suuhaa Management Plan and the DFO Implemented Fishery, see Table 2, below.

The various differences between the fishery proposals put forward by the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the

DFO amount to a fundamentally different direction for the fishery and for the small fishing communities that comprise the T’aaq-wiihak Nations. In the Nations’ official response to the DFO, they described the arrangement as “do[ing] almost nothing to advance [the] objective of rebuilding the fishery as an

12 economic and social support for [T’aaq-wiihak] communities”.44 It is in the context of this very dynamic

political climate that the NTC endeavours to utilize indicators to measure the social and economic

outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries. As will be emphasized throughout this report, this will likely

translate into a changing role for the indicators over time, as the active negotiation phase involving the

T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the DFO is settled and the Nations assume a greater management role.

Table 2: Comparison of major elements, 2012 Suuhaa Management Plan and DFO Implemented Fishery45 2012 Suuhaa Management Plan DFO Implemented Fishery Allocation 30,000 pieces (22.5% of Canadian Total Final allocation: 7,654 pieces (5.7% of Allowable Catch for West Coast Vancouver Canadian Total Allowable Catch Island AABM chinook: 133,300) Pre-season DFO proposal: 5,900 pieces, (4.4% of Canadian Total Allowable Catch) Treatment of Retention for home use permitted; trip Retention of by-catch not authorized By-catch limits for various species for sale purposes Timing May – September 2012 July 18th – September 30, 2012 (approximately 20 weeks) (approximately 10 weeks) Area Areas 24, 25 (inside) Areas 24/124 until July 28 Areas 124, 125 (outside) for entire duration 4 – 9 nautical mile strip of 124/125 from of fishery July28th-September 30th Gear Single, barbless hooks Single, barbless hooks Plugs when necessary for conservation Plugs until September Management T’aaq-wiihak cards, flags, logbooks and Use of landing slips Measures landings slips Fishery license by opening Ha’wiih issued Requirements and Responsibilities Agreement In-season management calls between DFO and Nations (i.e. regarding changes in Implementation Committee and allocations) Implementation Coordinator Monitoring Dockside monitoring Dockside monitoring and On the water monitoring On the water monitoring Compliance Log books kept by fishers Biological sampling protocols with Nations Development of Enforcement Committee (proposed but not developed)

44 “T’aaq-wiihak Rights Based Fisheries”, 2012 45 Adapted from “2012 Suuhaa Fishery Post-Season Review”

3.0 Indicator Use and Applicability in the Context of the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries

The purpose of the indicators will likely evolve in the coming years as the terms of the fishery develop.

Their use will also be aligned with applications the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the NTC deem to be appropriate and financially feasible. The following section examines the potential applications of social and economic fishery indicators in the short and long term.

3.1 Short-term indicator purpose

The single factor that most differentiates the short-term indicator purpose from the use of indicators in the long-term is the incomplete overlap between the potential parties involved in data collection and those involved in decision-making and management of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries46. Although the five

T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the NTC would likely be taking the lead in collecting and using the indicator data, at present these bodies are not the sole decision-makers. The DFO has played a major role in determining the parameters of the interim fishery, using a ‘take it or leave it’ approach to negotiations47

and will likely continue to hold this power at least until a long-term fishery management plan is

negotiated. As long as the T’aaq-wiihak Nations remain engaged with the DFO in negotiations, the communication and shared vision required to cooperatively translate policy directions suggested by indicator data into reality will be unlikely to exist. Therefore, indicator collection will quantify those socio-economic outcomes that have been produced by the fishery for the purposes of public education and, potentially to advance the interests of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in future court proceedings.

3.1.1 Use of Indicators in Public Education and Communication The primary application of indicators in the short term is likely to be for the purposes of communication of fishery outcomes to T’aaq-wiihak Nation members and the general public. The use of indicators in

46This has largely been the case until present, with the exception of the 2013 April T’aaq-wiihak demonstration fishery which was implemented under the authority of the Ha’wiih and supported by the DFO 47 “Nations File in Court” (2012)

14 this manner is important because it can contribute to the public’s raised awareness and thereby help to inform action, bringing people together to act to further a common cause.48 One significant area in

which there is great potential to build support is within the non-Aboriginal WCVI community. For

example, if the allocations were to be increased by a substantial margin, many of the economic benefits

could extend beyond the boundaries of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ territories, as fishing gear, fuel and

supplies may be purchased in neighbouring communities. Through public education and awareness-

raising about positive economic outcomes, alliances and support may be built within the broader WCVI

community, extending beyond the boundaries of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ reserves.

3.1.2 Use of Indicators in Court Proceedings The second potential short-term purpose of the T’aaq-wiihak indicators is to demonstrate the outcomes

produced by the fishery for the purposes of utilizing this information in court. In order to determine

what indicator information would be the most useful, it is necessary to examine the details of the two

unresolved court cases surrounding the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries. The first case follows from the 2009 ruling that left the issue of justification of the federal government’s infringement on the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations’ Aboriginal rights unresolved. In this case, the judge asserted that it was not appropriate to rule on the issue immediately as Canada had never considered the five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations as having the right to sell fish and therefore could not feasibly justify infringement. However, Canada has since been given the opportunity to take into account the designation of these Nations as right holders and respond accordingly, which means that the issue of justification can now be resolved.49 When the case is heard

in court, the indicators may be used to support the argument that Canada did not take sufficient

measures to negotiate an agreement that was consistent with the court rulings. In this context, the

indicators would need to demonstrate that the interim fishery did not go far enough in improving the

access of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations to the commercial fishery. If the indicators show that the positive

48Besleme et al. (1999) 49 “Nations file in court” (2012)

15 socio-economic outcomes within the T’aaq-wiihak Nations have been minimal, as expected, this may leverage their position, either in court or in future negotiations with the DFO.

Indicator data may also be used to assist the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in the court case that was recently reviewed by the BC Court of Appeal, and which may be subject of an application for leave to the

Supreme Court of Canada in coming months. This is a case that the federal government is pursuing in an effort to overturn the original 2009 BC Supreme Court ruling recognizing the Aboriginal right of the

T’aaq-wiihak Nations to fish commercially. In keeping with this process for adjudicating Aboriginal rights claims, the Court of Appeal must determine how to reconcile potentially competing interests, including fisheries by non-Aboriginal groups, conservation, and economic concerns, with the Aboriginal commercial fishery.50 To strengthen the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ position in potential future litigation

related to this court case, they will need to demonstrate that a rights-based fishery which is aligned with the Nations’ preferred means upholds principles of fish stock conservation and regional economic fairness, and maintains high standards in health and safety.51 Socio-economic indicator data that could be used in this case would demonstrate the positive benefits extending beyond the T’aaq-wiihak Nations to surrounding communities, the economic viability of the Nations’ preferred means of fishing, and the safety of fishing and food handling practices used by the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ fishers. If indicators are able to quantify performance relative to these key variables of interest to the courts, this may strengthen the Nations’ position in future proceedings. This, in turn, could translate into rulings that fall in the favour of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and allow the rights-based fishery to operate in closer accordance with the Nations’ preferred means over the long term.

50 “Supreme Court of Canada Directs BC” (2012) 51Brian Martin, pers. comm. (2012)

3.2 Long-term Indicator Purpose

Once the negotiations surrounding the terms of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries are settled, this will require

an adjustment in the use of the socio-economic fishery indicators. First, the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the NTC may choose to continue communicating the outcomes of the fishery to Nation members, the

DFO, or the general public over the long-term. Under such circumstances, the indicator suite may be adapted to include indirect outcomes of the fishery that are valued by this audience but which take longer to be manifested. Second, once the decision-making authority of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations is increased, indicators may be used by the Nations and local resource management partners to inform the development of policy responses, or to assess existing policies in order to improve upon them—an application that is more closely aligned with conventional indicator use. In this context, indicators may provide a better understanding of the ways in which T’aaq-wiihak fisheries policy and regulations are affecting social and economic outcomes, thereby allowing action to be taken to improve these outcomes and to move towards achieving the community’s objectives.52

4.0 Best Practices for the Use and Development of Social and Economic Indicators in Fisheries-Dependent Communities

The NTC’s recognition of the need for social and economic indicators for monitoring the outcomes of the

T’aaq-wiihak fisheries dovetails with the recent trend in fisheries indicator studies towards monitoring

both human and environmental systems. This holistic focus has arisen out of the concept of sustainable

development53, which calls for resource exploitation that addresses the issues of economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and social equity.54 Therefore, when taken together with the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations’ ongoing ecosystem monitoring activities, the use of social and economic indicators would bring

52 Le Gallic (2002) 53This concept was put forward in the Brundtland Report, which was published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) 54Drexhage& Murphy (2010)

17 the Nations’ monitoring efforts into alignment with global standards that are employed by various organizations including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World

Bank, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It is promising that the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ concern with a socially and environmentally sustainable fishery has been recognized by various international policy-making bodies, as this may lead to the indicators being granted greater recognition by non-T’aaq-wiihak Nation members in their potential use as part of these

Nations’ negotiation and public communication efforts. As will be discussed in Section 7.2, the overlap between the locally-developed fishery indicators and global standards could be underscored by structuring the indicator suite using the “Sustainable Fisheries” framework55, which was developed for

use at the local scale in fishery-dependent communities and conforms to the sustainable development paradigm.

The question of which social and economic indicators should be used is best addressed using a top-

down/bottom-up approach combining local stakeholder engagement with expert consultation or practices used in past reports.56 Stakeholder participation is valued in indicator development because it helps to ensure that the indicators are well suited to the local context. 57 Because of the inherent normativity of criteria and indicators, which are designed to measure progress towards a desired outcome,58 it is important that local stakeholders’ objectives be taken into account in their formulation.59 This is particularly helpful when measuring social components of the fishery system because of the subjectivity of social values.60 Complementing this approach with the use of criteria and

55 Charles (1994) 56 Fraser, E. et al. (2006) 57Boyd & Charles (2006) 58Maclaren (1996) 59Fraser, E. et al. (2006), Parkins (2004); Reed (2006); Natcher& Hickey ( 2002) 60For example, while one community may value increased fishery access for the economic benefits accruing to fishers, another community may place greater value on the opportunity for the increased ability for community members to partake in traditional livelihood systems.

18 indicators that are already well established facilitates comparison with other local fishery-dependent communities for which the same indicator data are being collected.61 Expert knowledge used to inform

the selection of indicators in previous reports may also help to provide a more complete picture of the

complexities of dynamic socio-ecological systems.62

For these reasons, both previous reports and local input was sought in the development of the indicators put forward in this report. This integrative approach has guided the methodology outlined in

Section 5.0, below.

5.0 T’aaq-wiihak Indicator Development: Methodology

Following best practices in the indicator literature, the indicator suite in this report was largely informed by T’aaq-wiihak Nation members’ objectives. Very simply, objectives can be understood as a statement of “what matters” that includes a desired direction of change (such as minimizing or maximizing).63 The methods used in objective setting included reviewing pertinent secondary data sources and conducting interviews with local fishers, fishery managers and political leaders from the T’aaq-wiihak Nations, as well as representatives of the NTC. These interviews involved speaking to these individuals about their needs, interests, and aspirations with respect to the fishery, which was followed by translating these ideas into succinct objectives (hereafter referred to as the “core objectives”).

Following objective identification, the core objectives were matched with appropriate criteria. Where

necessary, this bottom-up process was complemented by a top-down approach whereby some additional criteria were borrowed from previous studies in order to ensure that all variables contributing to the locally-identified objectives are included in the final indicator suite and provide insight into best practices in monitoring well-being. Less specific than indicators, criteria are general issues or outcomes

61Fraser et al. (2006) 62 Reed (2006) 63Gregory et al. (2012)

19 of interest related to sustainable T’aaq-wiihak fisheries. Criteria are typically paired with indicators—

the quantative or qualitative variables that allow criteria to be measured and described.64 For example the criterion “accessibility of the fishery for new entrants” may be measured by the indicator “annual percent increase in the number of active designees”. These criterion and indicator development processes are outlined in greater detail below.

5.1 Community-Based Objective Identification Process

5.1.1 Interview Methodology In total, 20 interviews were held with 23 T’aaq-wiihak Nation members or NTC representatives. Of these, twelve were active fishers and ten had been fishing under the 2012 interim fishing agreement at the time when the interview was conducted. Other interviewees were involved in the management of the fishery in various capacities—either fisheries managers, fisheries guardians, training/fleet managers, or elected councillors. Several among these interviewees also held the role of Ha’wilth for their Nation.

Interviewees included members of all five of the five T’aaq-wiihak Nations, including eight members from Ahousaht, five members from Hesquiaht, two members from Mowachaht/Muchalaht, three members from Tla-o-qui-aht, and one member from Ehattesaht. Interviews were semi-structured and varied in length from 15 minutes to one hour, with an average interview time of 35 minutes. Interview questions were designed to assess short-term objectives pertaining to the development of the fishery itself, and long-term visions regarding the social and economic goals that might be forwarded by the fishery. Interviews 1-5 were conducted in mid-June, prior to implementation of the fishery and subsequent to the offer from the DFO for the 2012 fishery being made. Interviews 6-20 were conducted between August and December, following implementation of the 2012 fishing arrangement.

64Adam & Kneeshaw (2008)

5.1.2 Secondary Data Collection A number of data sources were referenced in order to provide greater context and understanding of the present and desired future parameters of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries and more clearly define the core objectives that were communicated through interviews. This included several documents pertaining directly to the 2012 fishery arrangement and others containing information about the broader objectives that the Nations are pursuing through several avenues including, but not limited to, the development of the fishery. For a complete summary of data sources used, see Appendix B. Many of the documents do not pertain exclusively to the T’aaq-wiihak Nations65, and cannot be presumed to be entirely generalizable across all the T’aaq-wiihak Nations. It should be noted as well that the limitation of official documents, more generally, is that they may not reflect or capture the pluralism of community views, insights and interests.66 However, ground-truthing of these documents with fisher and fishery manager interviews confirmed a high degree of overlap in official documents and the opinions of community members. Taken together, the secondary sources and interviews were complementary—the former provided a useful means of contextualizing the opinions expressed by interviewees and the latter provided an effective means of ground-truthing the objectives contained in official documents.

5.2 Literature-Based Criterion Identification Process

The community-driven objective identification process was conducted in parallel with a review of 12 related reports on the topic of criteria and indicator use in fishery management and in consultation with various reports on monitoring of community well-being. This research served several purposes. First, the fishery indicator reports helped to provide greater depth and context for those objectives identified in interviews and thereby to ensure that all pertinent variables are included for monitoring. For

65 Many documents were produced by all the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations (rather than the T’aaq-wiihak Nations alone), one document reflects objectives of all WCVI residents including non-Aboriginal communities, and one item describes the objectives held by only one of the five Nations. 66Natcher & Hickey (2002)

21 example, while many interviewees identified the importance of maximizing community-scale economic benefit (Objective 3, Section 6.1), the interviews alone did not provide sufficient insight into the many variables mediating profit generated by the fishery. To fill these gaps, criteria were borrowed from the fishery indicator reports, such as “fishing effort”, “product value”, and “fishery infrastructure”—all properties that contribute to the profitability of the fishery. In this way, the literature informed the selection of criteria that would complement those paired with core objectives.

A second reason for using literature-based criteria is to permit for the inclusion of common measurements for the achievement of maximizing the health and well-being among Nation members

(Objective 8, Section 6.1). This objective emerged several times out of the community-based research but was not developed into more specific, clearly defined sub-objectives. This task falls outside of the scope of this report, as it was focused first and foremost on gathering fishers’ and fishery managers’ views and objectives. As variables pertaining to the community as a whole, definitions of health and well-being would require a more broad-based sampling of the T’aaq-wiihak Nation members beyond only those employed in the fishery. In strategic planning practice, this is typically performed through a facilitated group process involving stakeholders and local community members, which allows for differences in participants’ visions to be discussed and consensus to be built.67

In the absence of a representative sample of the broader T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ population and a consensus-building group visioning effort, the literature-based community well-being criteria provide a reasonable alternative to community-based well-being criteria that can be updated if or when a more extensive visioning process is undertaken. In order to ensure that these criteria are in alignment with local priorities, the objectives expressed in interviews and secondary data were taken into account when selecting potential indicators recommended in community well-being reports (See Section 6.2).

67United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2005)

6.0 T’aaq-wiihak Indicator Development: Results

6.1 Community Objectives

In total, the research revealed twelve core objectives. Among these objectives, ten were touched upon by four or more interviewees and an additional two objectives were addressed in fewer interviews, but added following expert opinion. There was also found to be a great deal of overlap between the objectives expressed in interviews and those contained in the secondary sources reviewed (see

Appendix C). Included below is a brief description of each objective that repeatedly arose in the interviews and the secondary data.

While the objectives are represented tidily as simple statements of preference, they should not be interpreted as representing the entirety of the objectives held by each member of the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations. Additionally, their representation in this manner is not intended to exaggerate the degree of homogeneity within the Nations, which, like any community, are sites of pluralism and are home to a range of views and opinions. In order to account for these representational challenges and to ensure transparency, the objectives list below describes those topics for which divergences in opinion exist in addition to illustrating those areas of common agreement. For a complete index of the list of objectives identified through interviews, including the frequency of their occurrence and the Nation membership or affiliation of those who expressed each objective, see Appendix D.

Objective 1: Maximize alignment of fishery management parameters with T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ opportunities and interests Creating a fishery that is compatible with the interests and preferred means of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations is strongly emphasized in the 2012 Suuhaa Fishery Post-Season Review and was cited in the majority of interviews conducted. Both of these sources highlighted how the terms of the fishery imposed by the

DFO, in a few key management issues, limited access to the fishery by reducing the financial viability of participation during the 2012 season. Therefore, many sub-objectives under this category pertain to

23 addressing the challenges imposed by these restrictions. Those that emerged most frequently in interviews include:

• Improved timeliness of the fishery: improving timing of openings to correspond with peak fishing periods and providing greater advance notice about opening dates • Increased season-to-season predictability • Reduced restrictiveness of fishing boundaries.

These objectives are consistent with the T’aaq-wiihak post-season review, which also identified the need for increased flexibility of species harvested, bycatch retention, and the elimination of the 20% holdback to accommodate recreational fishery overages. In general, those fishery regulations and management parameters that are considered favourable are compatible with a “mosquito fleet” fishery, which is put forward in the secondary sources and was supported by the majority of interviewees.68

Proposed Corresponding Indicators: Defined impact scale rating for 1) Timeliness of fishery, 2) Season- to-season predictability, 3) Restrictiveness of fishing boundaries, 4) Flexibility of species harvested, 5) Bycatch retention and 6) In-season predictability.

Objective 2: Maximize accessibility of the fishery for new entrants The Nations’ vision of returning the fishery to its place as the social and economic backbone of the

T’aaq-wiihak Nations strongly implies the need to maximize the accessibility of the fishery for new entrants, as current fishery employment levels represent only a small fraction of the total population.

The objective of “maximizing accessibility of the fishery for new entrants” is closely linked to the previous objective, “maximizing alignment of the fishery with T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ opportunities and interests”. Many of the regulations that are out of sync with the Nations’ opportunities and that restrict the financial viability of fishing for those who are already making a living from the fishery also act as deterrents for those who are considering entering the fishery. Several interviewees stated that the uncertainty of the financial viability of day-to-day operations, in combination with the high initial investment required to enter the fishery posed significant barriers to entry and were acting as

68With the exception of one fisher who questioned the financial viability and safety of the mosquito fleet.

24 disincentives to members of the younger generation who are interested in fishing. Fishers were not required to pay licensing fees for either the Suuhaa fishery or non-Salmon fishery of the 2012 season, which eliminated one financial barrier. However, the non-salmon fishery regulations required fishers to utilize expensive onboard camera equipment for monitoring purposes which made the costs of participation in this fishery prohibitively high. While addressing the two issues of day-to-day financial viability and high initial investments required to enter the fishery could help to address the accessibility of the fishery for new entrants in the short-medium term, other changes would be required in the long term; Several fishery managers interviewed asserted that the present allocation levels would not be sufficient to accommodate a great influx of new entrants to the fishery as the small number of fish would not be sufficient to support a large number of financially viable fishing operations. This is an issue that would need to be addressed once the number of new entrants begins to increase.

Proposed Corresponding Indicators: Cost of entry to the fishery; Net revenue from T’aaq-wiihak fishing; Total allocation

Objective 3: Maximize community-scale economic benefit derived from fisheries A number of interviewees asserted that the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries could hold significant potential for economic development in the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and identified job creation as a key objective. The creation of employment opportunities could benefit those who are presently living on the reserve who are unemployed or underemployed, as well as to help draw back those living away from home. In many of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations, a lack of job opportunities has driven people to move to larger cities in pursuit of work, which has led to shrinking communities, and—according to some interviewees— has affected community cohesion. Several fishers interviewed expressed the hope that the creation of a greater number of jobs for skippers and deckhands could help to reverse this trend. Furthermore, several interviewees involved in fishery management identified the creation of locally-owned spinoff industries as a longer-term strategic objective that could help to maximize the economic benefit captured by the T’aaq-wiihak Nations. Canneries, processing facilities, or businesses selling fuel or

25 fishing gear based on or near reserves could produce an economic multiplier effect, whereby the benefits could extend beyond fishers and more of the income generated from the fishery would stay within the community.

Proposed Corresponding Indicators: Estimated number of fishery-related jobs (i.e. marketing, harvest, processing, support industry), value added locally per fish.

Objective 4: Improve on-the-ground prioritization of Aboriginal commercial fishing rights According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Aboriginal rights of First Nations are protected by the

Canadian Constitution and have priority in allocation over other harvesters69. The economic fishing

rights of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations come third in line, after conservation (first priority) and food, societal, and ceremonial fishing rights (second priority). This is consistent with the emphasis in the secondary data on the inherent right and title of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations to their Ha-houlthee and the resources they contain. Many fishers felt that, under the terms of the 2012 fishery set by the DFO, the access of recreational fishers was being prioritized at their expense. Two issues were commonly identified in interviews: the relatively unrestricted boundaries within which the recreational fishers were permitted to fish as compared to T’aaq-wiihak Nation fishers, and the lack of requirement for plugs for recreational fishers as compared to the required use of plugs for T’aaq-wiihak Nation fishers. This was viewed as an unjust exertion of the DFO’s authority over the T’aaq-wiihak Nations within their own territories. In this way, prioritization of Aboriginal commercial fishing rights was framed within the context of recognizing the authority and responsibility of the Ha’wiih over their Ha-houlthee.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Percentage of Pacific fishery TAC allocated to T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ fisheries; defined impact scale for prioritization of Aboriginal commercial fishing rights

Objective 5: Strengthen Collaborative Partnership with the DFO Many interviewees expressed the view that by recognizing that the present fishery system was not compatible with the needs of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations, the 2009 Ahousaht et al. ruling created an

69 R v Gladstone, 2005 SCC 21 at para. 69

26 opportunity for authentic partnership by underscoring the need for the DFO to engage with the T’aaq- wiihak Nations in future fisheries policy planning. However, many felt that this opportunity was not being capitalized upon. Problems cited included a lack of recognition of the authority of the Ha’wiih by the DFO, poor communication (i.e. prolonged response times to the Nations’ proposals and lack of negotiation or dialogue conducted in good faith), as well as mutual distrust. These issues were perceived by interviewees as being manifested in the dissatisfactory terms of the fishery offered by the DFO in the

2012 season.

Many, but not all interviewees expressed a desire to strengthen the collaborative partnership between the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the DFO—in fact this objective was the most contentious of all those identified. Among those who did not agree with the need to strengthen DFO-Nation relations, many envisioned the role of the DFO shrinking as the authority of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in managing the fishery within their territories grew, thereby reducing the need for cooperative management. Improved relations were nevertheless perceived as an important priority among many of those who did foresee the need for ongoing interactions with the DFO.

There were two common suggestions proffered by interviewees and supported by the secondary sources regarding ways of contributing to a strengthened collaborative partnership between the DFO and the T’aaq-wiihak Nations. First, several individuals recommended that the DFO undertake capacity building to address intercultural understanding, exemplified by one councilor’s suggestion that “we need to teach DFO about Aboriginal culture and the way we do things”. Similarly, the Draft Ehattesaht

Chinehkint Plan states that “capacity building must be seen as a two way street. Thus far all the capacity building focus has been on First Nations. DFO must also build their capacity to work collaboratively with

ECFN and other Nations”.

A second, related suggestion that emerges in the 2012 Salmon Fisheries Plan is to increase transparency and collaboration between the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the DFO in the management of the fishery. For example, this plan suggests that a “compliance and enforcement” agreement as well as a post-season review be undertaken jointly by the DFO and the T’aaq-wiihak Nations to enable shared learning. This approach is echoed in the Draft Ehattesaht Chinehkint Plan, which envisions the development of a collaborative management relationship between the ECFN and the DFO, wherein annual species-specific fisheries plans, rules and regulations would be developed by Uu-a-thluk, the ECFN Fisheries Department and the DFO. From the perspective of numerous fishers, greater transparency and opportunity for input into the management of the fishery than was permitted under the 2012 fishery would also be desirable—an objective that is compatible with this partnership-based approach.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Defined impact scale rating to describe level of collaborative decision making, transparency, and intercultural understanding

Objective 6: Maximize Compliance of Fishers with Fishery Rules and Regulations Maximization of compliance with regulations was an objective cited in numerous interviews with fishers.

In some instances, this objective was framed within a concern for fairness. Some fishers felt that they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that they were “playing by the rules” while other fishers—both those fishing recreationally and those fishing on behalf of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations—were not. Others discussed the issue of compliance in reference to the importance of not over-fishing the resource, in order to ensure the sustainability of the fishery.70 This appreciation for the longevity of the fishery and the sustainability of fish stocks was also underscored in four of the secondary sources. Nevertheless, compliance was revealed to be a contentious issue because of the widespread perception of the rules and regulations as unfair and unsuitable to the preferred means of fishing among the T’aaq-wiihak

70This objective of establishing long-term ecological sustainability of the fishery was also expressed in the secondary sources (see Appendix B). However, it is outside of the scope of this report to develop corresponding ecological sustainability indicators.

Nations. In one instance, breaking the rules was described by an interviewee as a means of protesting the regulations imposed unilaterally by the DFO. Compliance is therefore closely linked to the perception of the regulations as legitimate, which will likely be lacking until the priorities of the T’aaq- wiihak fishers come to be incorporated into the management of the fishery.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Number of warnings, citations, or infractions issued for non- compliance; Defined impact scale rating for perceived non-compliance rate

Objective 7: Maximize effectiveness and openness of communication between fishery managers and fishers Interviewees underscored the importance of open communication between fishers and those involved in managing or coordinating the fishery. This objective was described most often as a means of facilitating the effective operation of day-to-day fishing activities. For example, several interviewees asserted that timely communication from coordinators to fishers about the timing of fishery openings would permit fishers to maximize their time spent fishing during these openings. Those involved in fishery coordination acknowledged the challenge of communicating fishery openings to fishers, particularly those in remote locations, and cited limited technological means of communication as a challenge to be addressed in the future. Another issue that arose was the question of establishing consistent communication from fishers to coordinators regarding the timing of landings. Interviewees stated that improvements in this area would allow for consistent monitoring of landings, including the completion of landing slips.

The importance of communication was also emphasized by several fishers as a way of ensuring that the regulatory parameters of the fishery which are determined by the T’aaq-wiihak Nations are well suited to fishers’ needs. While the majority of fishers were sympathetic to the limited decision-making power of their Nations’ authorities given that the terms of the fishery were primarily being dictated by the DFO during the 2012 fishery, some interviewees nevertheless felt that increased consultation in those

29 management decisions over which the T’aaq-wiihak Nations did have authority would be desirable. For example, two interviewees felt that the openings could have been better timed to align with their preferred fishing times (corresponding to lunar cycles), thereby permitting greater return on fishing efforts. As this example demonstrates, consultation and engagement with fishers would allow for the increased integration of local and traditional knowledge into the management of the fishery. Therefore, open communication between the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ fishery managers and fishers will be of utmost importance if and when the authority of the Nations in determining the regulatory parameters of the fishery increases.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Defined impact scale rating for day-to-day communication (i.e. regarding fishery openings); Defined impact scale rating for inclusivity, involvement of fishers in decision-making; Defined impact scale rating for “communication technology”

Objective 8: Maximize health and well-being of T’aaq-wiihak Nation members Many interviewees recognized that the fishery held the potential to produce a variety of social and cultural benefits that could contribute to improved health and well-being among T’aaq-wiihak Nation members. Interviewees identified a number of desired direct health and well-being benefits of the fishery including: improved physical and mental health resulting from engagement in a culturally meaningful livelihood, improved self-confidence resulting from increased self-sufficiency and improved diet resulting from increased access to traditional foods. Furthermore, several goals pertaining to long- term social well-being were brought to light, including:

• Strong social ties and community cohesion • Increased autonomy of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations • Increased connection to the land and sea • Addiction-free communities • Opportunities for youth to acquire culturally-relevant knowledge and values

For reasons described in Section 5.2, this objective, which is relatively broad, was not developed into more specific sub-objectives. The sub-objectives included above were in some cases only touched upon

30 by one or two interviewees, but they are nevertheless included because they were used to guide the selection of appropriate long-term benefit measures when drawing upon the community well-being literature.

Proposed corresponding indicators: See Section 6.2.2

Objective 9: Maximize cultural continuity through the fishery

Maximizing cultural continuity through the fishery was identified in 14 of the 20 interviews conducted— more frequently than any other objective included in this list. Interviewees asserted that ongoing access to the fishery is a vitally important means of ensuring that traditional Nuu-chah-nulth livelihoods and accompanying culture and values are transmitted to future generations. The question of bringing the terms of the fishery into alignment with the T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ preferred means and increasing accessibility of the fishery for new entrants (Objectives 1 and 2) were consistently couched within a concern for further enabling access to the fishery. For example, several part-time fishers with secondary sources of employment spoke about increasing the financial viability of fishing in the context of enhancing their quality of life by enabling them to spend more time fishing. When asked what they valued about the fishery, interviewees often spoke about their participation in the industry as more than simply a job, but instead, as a key component of their identity, perhaps best summed up by one interviewee’s assertion: “Every time I set foot on a boat, I feel right at home”.

The fishery was described by interviewees as protecting cultural continuity in several ways. Most commonly, interviewees identified the practice of bringing younger family members out when fishing as a very tangible way that the fishery could help ensure that traditional livelihoods were passed down inter-generationally. Second, the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries were described as protecting cultural continuity by renewing the role of the Ha’wiih, who are responsible for granting permission to fish within their Ha-

31 houlthee. By re-instituting the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries, interviewees suggested that the identity and autonomy of the Nations may also be strengthened.

Several interviewees also referenced the importance of maintaining access to traditional foods.71 While

the 2012 interim fishery did not permit the retention of bycatch, the T’aaq-wiihak Nations have been negotiating with DFO to permit bycatch to be sold or redistributed within the Nations, a practice that is consistent with the traditional Nuu-chah-nulth fishery management system. This could contribute to a greater volume of fish being made available to T’aaq-wiihak Nation members.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Number of excursions accompanied by a family member of a younger generation, number of speakers fluent in Aboriginal language per Nation, defined impact scale rating for “re-establishment of traditional governance roles in resource management”, number of meals including WCVI fish per week/month.

Objective 10: Increase fishers’ commercial fishing knowledge As new fishers enter the fishery and as others make the transition from fishing for food and ceremonial purposes to selling fish to buyers outside of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations, several interviewees—including both fishers and fishery managers—suggested that fishers may need to acquire some new knowledge and skills. Potential learning areas included methods of preparing the fish onboard and means of ensuring that sanitation standards are upheld in the preparation process. Additionally, several interviewees identified the need for fishers to build their entrepreneurship skills, as each fisher selling fish commercially is essentially running a small business.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Number of registrants/graduates in fisheries-related training programs; Self-assessed knowledge using a defined impact scale

71 Although several interviewees felt the increased access to traditional foods was an important means by which the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries could contribute to cultural continuity, there was not complete consensus on this question. For example one interviewee suggested that food preferences, particularly among younger generations may have changed, and expressed scepticism that increased availability of traditional foods would translate into the increased consumption of such foods by all Nation members.

Objective 11: Increase economic benefit to non-T’aaq-wiihak members This objective was put forth in interviews with two non-T’aaq-wiihak Nation members, and included for its strategic value; One interviewee suggested that monitoring the economic benefit accrued by local non-First Nations communities from the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries could benefit the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in future negotiations by demonstrating that it upholds principles of regional economic fairness. Another suggested that this information could be used in communications as a means of leveraging support for the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries among local WCVI residents who are not members of the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations (See Section 3.1.2).

Proposed corresponding indicators: Percentage of total landings sold to local WCVI buyers, value added locally per fish

Objective 12: Increase equitability of employment opportunities in the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries Two interviewees explicitly identified the desire to ensure that the opportunities produced by the T’aaq- wiihak fisheries would produce employment opportunities accessible to all members of the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations. This objective was also identified in the Ehattesaht/Chinehkint fisheries plan and is widely viewed as an important objective in the sustainable fisheries literature.72 At present, middle aged and upper-middle aged men are overrepresented among those fishing actively for the T’aaq-wiihak Nations.

The financial capital required to enter the fishery remains prohibitively high and the financial return too uncertain to translate into large numbers of youth entering the fishery. Another factor contributing to the demographic trend is that traditionally, women have not participated in the fishery as skippers but have participated in post-harvest industry. Therefore, in the short term, spinoff industries could play an important role in increasing the equitability of employment opportunities among T’aaq-wiihak Nation members.

Proposed corresponding indicators: Number of women employed in management, harvest and post- harvest, and fishery-related sectors living on reserve; Number of low-barrier/minimal investment jobs available in harvest and post-harvest and fishery-related sectors

72Pollnac et al. (2008)

6.2 Literature-Based Criteria

6.2.1 Fisheries Indicator Criteria In reviewing 11 previously published fisheries indicator reports, a number of common criteria emerged.

Those that were deemed to be applicable in the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries context (based on interview and secondary data findings) are summarized in Table 3, below73. The first two categories of criteria in this table are not specifically socio-economic in nature. However, they provide context for the indicators belonging to other categories which do pertain to social or economic variables. To illustrate the pertinence of these criteria to the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries context, each literature-based criterion has been grouped with one or more of the core community objectives in Table 3. Community objectives were labeled as corresponding to the literature-based criterion if they were considered to be a driver or an outcome of the criterion variable. For example, the age structure of harvesters (a literature-based criterion) could be altered by increasing the accessibility of the fishery for new entrants (Objective 2), and changes in age structure could also contribute to greater cultural continuity (Objective 9). For this reason, both objective 2 and 9 are included as “corresponding objectives” to this criterion in Table 3.

73 The “framework categories” that are used to order the criteria in Table 1 are consistent with the long-term fisheries framework proposed and further elaborated upon in Section 6.2.

Table 3: Widely Used Criteria in Fisheries Indicator Reports with Applicability to the T’aaq-wiihak Context Framework Criterion Studies using Corresponding category criterion community (see below for sources objective corresponding to numbers) External Marine resource levels 4, 6 2, 3, 6, 11 forces Product value 4, 5, 6, 7 2, 3, 10, 11 Subsidies 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12 2, 3 Fishery Landings: volume of catch 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 3, 4, 7, 10 Attributes 11, 12 Landings: value of catch 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 2, 3, 10 12 Fishing effort (i.e. number of vessels, gear 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12 1, 10 type) Net revenue generated by 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 3, 4, 10 fishery/profitability 11, 12 Physical resources/infrastructure 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 2, 3 Sanitation 7 3, 10 Resource use patterns (distribution, 4, 5, 6 1, 3, 4 processing, consumption) Unused allocation/Processing overcapacity 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 1, 3 Community Cost of entry and participation (ice, 2, 4, 11 2, 3 Sustainability insurance, fuel, depreciation) Access for people dependent on local 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 1, 2, 3, 4,6, 7, 9 fishing relative to access for non-locals Conflict and cooperation in fishery 4, 5, 6 4, 6, 8 Demographics and age structure of 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 2, 8, 9, 12 harvesters 12 Social cohesion 4, 6, 7, 11 1, 6, 8, 9, 12 Fishing traditions/culture 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 1, 7, 8, 9 Migration into and away from community/ 5, 8 1, 2, 8, 9 membership levels Participation of women in management, 7 8, 12 harvest and post-harvest sectors Food security: Consumption of fish 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 1, 8, 9 Institutional Management inclusivity, transparency, and 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 5, 6, 7 Sustainability participation Compliance 3, 4, 11 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 Management cost and resources 2, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5 Capacity to manage 3, 7 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 Appropriateness of regulation (fairness, 4, 6 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 complexity, effectiveness, restrictiveness) Fishery training completion rate/growth in 8,10 2, 8, 10 number of fishers

Framework Criterion Studies using Corresponding category criterion community objective Socio- Fisher economic Fishing employment 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 economic benefit Indebtedness 3, 5, 6 2, 4, 8, 10 Sustainability Income from fishing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 11, 12 Community Regional support 7 3, 11 economic benefit businesses Product 5, 7, 12 3, 10, 11 Improvement Community material Median income 1, 5, 8, 12 3, 8 well-being Social stratification 4, 5, 7, 9, 12 8 and poverty Quality of life and well-being 4, 9 1, 8, 9 Harvest Safety 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 8, 10 Job satisfaction 4, 5, 11 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 Literacy/education 3, 5, 7, 11 8, 9, 10 1) Adrianto et al. (2005); 2) Bonzon (2000); 3) FAO (1999); 4) Pollnac et al. (2008); 5) Boyd (2002); 6) Boyd & Charles (2006); 7) World Bank (2012); 8) Atlantic Policy Congress (2005); 9) Olsen (2003); 10) Le Gallic (2002); 11) Clay et al. (2010) 12) Kruse (2012)

The criteria included above have all been integrated into the indicator recommendations. However, in

some cases, they have been adapted to suit the local context. For a complete summary of those criteria

that have been adapted, see Appendix E.

6.2.2 Community Well-Being Criteria As discussed in Section 6.1, common measurements for the achievement of maximized health and well- being among Nation members (Objective 8) were borrowed from past fisheries indicator and community well-being reports to further elaborate upon the well-being objective identified by interviewees. These are summarized below.

Measures of Quality of Life A comprehensive review74 of 22 reports aimed at measuring the socio-economic sustainability of natural-resource dependent communities has shown that the most frequently collected indicators to belong to the following major domains: 1) employment and income 2) education 3) health 4) social

74Beckley & Burkowsky (1999)

36 pathologies 5) community cohesion 6) decision-making and 7) natural resource use. Each of these categories is included in the recommended indicator suite for the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries. However, in some cases, they have been adapted to the local context. For example, the local emphasis on opportunities for youth to learn culturally-relevant knowledge and skills was adapted into an indicator for measuring “fishing mentorship opportunities on the water” to complement the widely used measurement of institutional educational attainment as an indicator of well-being. The decision to include or exclude an indicator used in previous reports, rather than adapt it, was also informed by the interviews and secondary data. The indicator “rate of drug and alcohol induced deaths” was included because of the emphasis some interviewees placed on reducing addictions in their communities, but crime was not, as a local informant suggested its use would not be appropriate in the T’aaq-wiihak

Nation communities.

One additional indicator category that has been used for monitoring well-being in First Nation communities and which has been adapted for use in this indicator suite is cultural well-being. Four broad categories may be used to monitor culture75, including cultural education, language, traditional

knowledge and skills, as well as land (or sea) use. Both personal accounts of interviewees and academic

studies have suggested that cultural well-being is linked to physical and mental health76, which are

widely recognized as key categories in the community well-being literature.

Corresponding criteria/indicators: Number of fluent Nuu-chah-nulth language speakers; Material well- being of community; Economic benefit of fishery participation; Education (including institutional education and transfer of local/traditional knowledge); Physical health and mental health

75Parlee & O’Neil (2007) 76Research showing a positive correlation between access to and traditional use of territories among Aboriginal people and improved health outcomes, including lower rates of renal disease, diabetes, and hypertension (Campbell et al., 2011) holds significance for the Nuu-chah-nulth nations, given that the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries represent for many the reintegration into the industry following an absence lasting several generations.

Subjective Measures of Well-Being Many of the quality of life measures lend themselves to objective quantification (i.e. education level, prevalence of disease, income etc.). However, as Table 2 demonstrates, many fisheries indicator reports also use subjective measures to assess well-being—including not only measures of material wealth and income, but also self-assessments of job satisfaction and quality of life. This practice is also common in community well-being reports77 and is employed in this report. It is based on the recognition of the

limitations of objective measures. For example, even members of communities with high standards of

living may perceive their state as leaving room for improvement due to psychological adaptation to a

given living standard.78 Studies on job satisfaction and well-being of fishers have also shown the reverse

to be true: in some cases where objective indicators show a low level of material well-being, subjective

indicators based on fishers’ self-assessment reveal a high level of happiness and self-actualization.79

Corresponding criteria/indicators: Self-assessed quality of life; Job satisfaction

Group Level Well-Being Attributes Another common trend in fisheries indicator reports is the use of criteria and indicators that measure those aspects of well-being that account for the distinctively social aspects of group welfare—those that can only be fulfilled through membership to the group. These can be differentiated from many of the quality-of-life measures delineated above which simply represent aggregated individual level measures of well-being. This differentiation of group welfare and aggregated individual welfare is consistent with

Fundamental Human Needs Theory80, which identifies both subsistence needs (i.e. food, safety,

77 Tucker (2004); Beckley &Burkosky (1999); Kusel (2001); Bates et al.(1996) 78Leitmann (2007) 79 Smith & Clay (2010) 80 According to this theory, there are nine human needs: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity and freedom (Boyd, 2002)

38 employment) and needs that are more social in nature, such as identity and participation. These needs are divided into two categories in the long-term indicator framework proposed in Section 7.2.81

Corresponding criteria/indicators: Social stratification; Social cohesion; Conflict and cooperation among fishers82

6.3 T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Socio-economic System Scope

When taken together with the criteria identified in the review of previous fishery and community well- being reports, the interviews and secondary sources conveyed a complex picture of variables mediating the relationship between the fishery and the well-being of T’aaq-wiihak Nation members. The influence diagram83 below (Figure 3) is intended to visually depict the different dimensions of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries and thereby situate the previously identified objectives and criteria—derived from past reports and T’aaq-wiihak Nation members—within the fishery system as a whole. In this diagram, arrows are used to indicate the direction of influence between variables. Towards the top of the diagram are the external forces that represent “input” variables and contribute to setting the general terms of the fishery. Towards the bottom of the diagram are the “outcome” variables: those that result from the fishery activity, such as individual and community socio-economic attributes. These include both direct and indirect effects of the fishery.

Because of the fact that many factors influence indirect socio-economic outcomes, confirming the causality of change in these conditions can be a challenge. However, rather than limit indicators strictly to monitoring variables that are directly affected by natural resource management to ensure a causal relationship, process indicators can be used to monitor the dynamic variables that may be affecting

81Following Boyd (2002), individual subsistence needs, such as food, safety, and employment, are grouped under “Socio-economic Sustainability” and those needs that are more social in nature, such as identity and participation are grouped under “Community Sustainability” 82Note: Many indicators of cultural well-being listed previously also fall into the category of “group-level well-being attributes” 83Adapted from Pollnac et al. (2008); influence diagrams may also be used as visualization tools to assist in the group facilitation process when setting objectives (see Robin et al., 2012).

39 broader management outcomes84. In this diagram, process variables are situated in the centre: these are the fisheries management factors. The importance of monitoring both direct and indirect effects is underlined by the strong emphasis interviewees placed on the indirect outcomes of the fishery – specifically those relating to cultural continuity and fisheries management. The latter domain is depicted in this diagram as a process variable because it plays a role in determining the outcomes of the fishery. However, given the culturally significant role of the Ha’wiih in decision-making regarding the management of their ha-houlthee, many fisheries management variables can also be understood as a standalone “outcomes” of interest.

84Morford (2007)

Figure 3: Influence Diagram Depicting Scope of T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Socio-economic System

7.0 Recommended Framework for the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicators

When monitoring multi-dimensional phenomena such as the various socio-cultural and economic outcomes generated by a fishery, indicator frameworks are useful tools for establishing a conceptual foundation and operational structure in the development of indicator suites. Because of the conceptual clarity that such structures provide, they have become a fixture in indicator development.85 In order to suit the changing fishery monitoring needs of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations in the coming years, two separate indicator frameworks are recommended. The first is intended for use in the short term, primarily to communicate the outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries to the Nation members and the general public, and potentially for use in court proceedings and negotiations with the DFO. The second is intended for use in the long term, to serve as a decision-making tool under circumstances where the

T’aaq-wiihak Nations hold greater authority in setting the regulatory parameters of the fishery. The indicator frameworks are therefore adapted to serve these varying needs; the short-term framework is primarily structural86, while combining a balance of process and outcome indicators. The long-term indicator suite also groups indicators according to structural categories of different dimensions of sustainability. However, it differs in that the framework itself is organized so as to illustrate the means through which outcomes of interest are produced.87This long-term indicator structure helps to ensure

that the indicator suite fulfills the dual purpose of informing managers of fishery outcomes to determine

whether fisheries management is on track, as well as elucidating the systems by which these outcomes

are generated in order to help to determine where adjustments are required in management practices.

85 see OECD (2011), Hart (1999), FAO Fisheries Resources Division (1999), and Natcher& Hickey (2002) 86 Structural frameworks organize indicators under all the relevant dimensions of the system of interest such as “human” or “environment” (FAO Fisheries Resources Division, 1999) 87 This represents the “process” approach to structuring indicator frameworks (FAO Fisheries Resources Division, 1999)

7.1 Short-term Indicator Framework The structural categories in the proposed short-term indicator framework (Figure 4) reflect the primary means by which local resource users and managers gauge policy success: Socio-economic

Benefit, Good Governance, and Fisheries Access. The use of the objectives of local resource users as the basis for the indicator framework permits the structure to be tailored to the distinctive context and purpose for which the short-term indicators will be used. This approach was selected as an alternative to borrowing an indicator framework from the fisheries literature because this work is almost exclusively focused on the use of indicators as tools to inform management decisions. As long as the DFO continues to hold most decision-making power regarding fishery management, the primary indicator purpose will be to communicate about policy outcomes rather than to directly inform policy-making.

Figure 4: T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicator Framework for Short-Term Use

Employment

Entrants Access Access Barriers

Stability

Personal socio- Socio-economic economic benefit Benefit Societal socio- term fisheries indicators

- economic benefit

Short DFO-Nation relations Governance Fishery management

Although the three proposed framework categories are unique, their structural design is well supported.

The use of indicator frameworks in the community well-being literature is based on the same approach

that is proposed here, whereby structural categories correspond to factors that are widely accepted as

contributing to the broader objective of interest.88 There are two notable features of the short-term

T’aaq-wiihak indicator framework. First, the use of categories of importance to local stakeholders may

contribute to the utility of the indicator suite as a communication tool with the Nation members.89

Second, the structure places a strong emphasis on the first category, “Access”, with a number of sub-

categories including Employment, Entrants, Access Barriers, and Stability. Although this may not

necessarily translate into a greater number of indicators representing this category in the final indicator

suite, it ensures that the numerous variables affecting fisheries access will be adequately represented at

this later stage. The emphasis on indicators demonstrating fisheries access is also well suited to the

purpose of presenting the immediate outcomes of the fishery in court.

7.2 Mid- to Long-Term Indicator Framework As the purpose for which the indicators are being used begins to shift from assessing policy to informing

policy, the indicator framework will need to be adjusted accordingly. Although the majority of the

short-term indicators will remain applicable, many additional indicators will likely be required in order to

provide a holistic picture of the fisheries system and better guide management decisions. Within this

longer timeframe, it will also be appropriate to measure those higher order outcomes of the fishery that

take longer to manifest themselves. These impacts, which include improved health and well-being as well as increased cultural continuity, are of high priority to many of the T’aaq-wiihak Nation members. In

88 This is frequently seen in the community well-being literature, where categories such as health, education and crime prevention are used for measuring well-being. Similarly, fisheries access, socio-economic benefit, and good governance determine the effectiveness of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries regime according to the local priorities identified through interviews and secondary sources. 89This is consistent with the suggestion made by Natcher and Hickey (2002) that indicator frameworks should be “capable of articulating value diversity [and should be] transparent to both community members and resource managers”

order to adapt the indicator suite to suit these long-term needs, the use of the Sustainable Fisheries indicator framework is recommended. This framework was developed by Charles (1994)90, and has been adapted to suit the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries context (see Figure 5, below).

Figure 5: Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework for Long-Term Use

Institutional Sustainability

Ecological Sustainability

Community Socio-economic Sustainability Sustainability

Fishery Attributes

External Factors

7.2.1 Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework Description This framework is intended for both external use, including communicating outcomes of the fishery to the public, as well as internal use, in helping to organize indicators in a manner that facilitates decision- making in fishery management. Taking a hybridized structural/process-based approach, the framework is ordered around the measurement of the socio-economic, institutional and community sustainability of fisheries— represented within the corners of a triangle—and ecological sustainability, which underlies

90 This framework is also utilized by Boyd (2002), and Adrianto et al. (2004)

and supports these human realms and is therefore situated at the centre of the triangle91. Additionally,

these four structural indicator categories are complemented by additional categories of “fishery

attributes” and “external factors”92, which serve to elucidate the process by which the outcomes of the

fishery are produced. For a description of the working sustainability definitions upon which this model

is based, see Figure 6, below.

Figure 6: Sustainability Definitions Used in the Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework

Ecological sustainability: The most important aspect of fishery sustainability, ecological sustainability requires maintaining the integrity of an ecosystem over time. In the fisheries context, it requires that fish stocks and species are maintained at levels that do not cancel out future options.

Institutional sustainability: This aspect of sustainability is tied to the ongoing maintenance of strong partnerships between management authorities, as well as a high level of administrative and organizational capacity in fishery management. A related issue is that of compliance and enforceability of regulations, which is indicative of the perceived legitimacy of institutional authority.

Socio-economic sustainability: This aspect of sustainability focuses on aggregated individual social and economic welfare through time. In a fisheries context, achieving socio-economic sustainability requires that net benefits are produced by the fishery and distributed with relative equity across the community. Note: Social and economic considerations are considered together because they are so closely tied in the policy-setting context.

Community sustainability: This refers to the sustainability of collective group welfare in fishery- dependent communities. This category differs from the socio-economic sustainability category because it takes into account group dynamics and the interactions between individuals within the community.

Adapted from Charles (1994) Among the process indicator categories, which complement the structural sustainability categories, the

“fishery attribute” grouping may include various indicators pertaining to the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries activity, such as fishing effort or volume of catch. The “external factors” category includes those

91Charles’ (1994) Sustainable Fishery Framework depicted Institutional Sustainability in the centre of the triangle. This model situates Ecological Sustainability in the centre to indicate that social systems are embedded within environmental systems. In addition to being scientifically sound, this principle is locally supported and well understood, as exemplified in a local socio-economic indicator report developed for use in the WCVI region by Loucks et al. (2011) which depicts environmental systems as underlying social systems in the “drum of life” model. 92Adapted from Pollnac et al. (2008)

46 indicator variables that contribute to the terms of the fishery which are outside of the purview of the

T’aaq-wiihak Nations (such as management decisions made by the DFO, or environmental variables affecting the fishery). Both categories of indicators are depicted within dotted lines because their inclusion in communications with the public is optional. They are intended to serve primarily as a policy- setting tool because, in combination with many of the “institutional sustainability” indicators, they elucidate the processes through which community sustainability and socio-economic sustainability are achieved. In making these processes more transparent to those responsible for fisheries decision- making, they will be better equipped to make adjustments to regulatory parameters of the fishery if the regulations and policies already in place are not producing the desired outcomes.

7.2.2 Sustainable Fisheries Indicator Framework: Rationale for Use

This indicator framework is well suited to the T’aaq-wiihak context, first and foremost, because it allows for the inclusion of indicators measuring higher order outcomes of the fishery. By including categories of both community sustainability and socio-economic sustainability, it accommodates indicators that measure community well-being as a whole rather than focusing narrowly on direct outcomes, such as income of T’aaq-wiihak fishers. Given the emphasis that the secondary sources and interviewees placed on these indirect effects, their inclusion in the indicator suite is of utmost importance.

Conceptually, the Sustainable Fisheries indicator framework is also compatible with local values and principles. First, it accounts for the interrelatedness of the socio-economic and environmental realms, a concept that is fundamental to the Nuu-chah-nulth concept of “Hishukish Tsa’walk”, meaning everything is one. Second, it is premised upon the sustainable development paradigm, which means that its focus is distinctively future-oriented. In the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainability is defined as “development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This is compatible with the future-oriented perspective that guides resource

47 management by the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations. This perspective is exemplified by the Uu-a-thluk strategic vision document, which states that the “Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’wiih are committed to uphold our responsibility and ensure the inherent health and wealth of our Ha-ha-houlthee for generations to come”.

In addition to being compatible with Nuu-chah-nulth values, the Sustainable Fisheries indicator framework has a number of other advantages. It is simple enough that it permits a high level of flexibility.93 All 12 core objectives identified can be categorized within one of the four sustainability

realms that are included in this framework. Because of this flexibility, this framework could also easily

accommodate the indicators that have been developed for use in the short term in addition to any

indicators that are deemed to be suitable for long-term use. The Sustainable Fisheries framework and

the paradigm on which it is premised have also received widespread recognition among fisheries

managers and scientists including the DFO94 as well as international bodies such as the UN Food and

Agriculture Organization and the World Bank. Recognition of the fisheries management framework by such organizations is notable, as it will lend greater legitimacy and recognition to the data that is guiding local resource management practices and potentially greater recognition of these management practices themselves.

8.0 Recommended Indicators for Use in Measuring the Outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries

8.1 Indicator Types Used There are three kinds of data recommended for use in this indicator suite. Their strengths and

shortcomings are described below.

93 Shields et al. (2002) 94 Jamieson et al.(2001)

8.1.1 Natural Measures Natural measures refer to indicators that directly report the fulfillment of an objective or criterion of interest.95 Examples include the income derived from participation in the fishery and number of

excursions accompanied by a family member of a younger generation. This indicator type is considered

the most reliable. It is recommended for use when valid data are readily available, or when reasonable

estimates can be made by local fishery experts.

8.1.2 Constructed Measures Constructed measure indicator data are used for criteria that do not lend themselves naturally to

quantification.96 These measures use a constructed scale (i.e. high/medium/low) to allow for monitoring of the criterion of interest. A widely used constructed measure, and one that is recommended for use by the NTC in future monitoring efforts is the “defined impact scale”. This approach combines a numerical scale with an accompanying qualitative description.97 For example, a potential rating scale for “Access to Ice” could range from 1-5, where the ordinal scale rating assigned would be based upon alignment with the following ratings:

(5) Ice is readily available in various forms in all Nations (4) Ice is readily available in various forms with occasional shortages in some Nations (3) Ice is available in all Nations but in limited quantity/form (e.g. block only) (2) Ice is available in very limited quantity/form in all Nations (1) Ice is unavailable in all Nations

The advantage of the defined impact scale is that by specifying the rating scale using a pre-determined set of criteria to describe each numerical rating, personal judgments and assumptions involved in assigning ratings are reduced, allowing for greater comparability across time and between T’aaq-wiihak

Nation communities.

95Robin et al, 2012 96 Robin et al. 2012, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2005) 97Robin et al. 2012

8.1.3 Proxy Measures When a natural measure cannot be identified or is not practical to use, an alternative is the use of proxy measures. Many of the social and economic indicators recommended for use in the T’aaq-wiihak context—particularly those pertaining to increased health and well-being (Objective 8) fall into this category. When using proxy measures, it is important that the relationship between the proxy and the fundamental objective is well understood and broadly accepted. 98 As discussed in Section 6.2.2, the validity of the proxy measures was verified by ensuring their alignment with indicators used in the literature and in some cases adapting these indicators to the local context.

8.2 Recommended Indicator Suite All three indicator types: constructed measures, natural measures, and proxy measures are included in the recommended indicator suite outlined in Tables 4-8 below. All of the recommended indicators were screened using the SMART test for objective verification99, whereby each candidate objective or criterion is tested to ensure that it is specific, measurable, appropriate, and realistic. The remaining

screening criterion, that the measure be “time-dated” was not applied due to the uncertainty raised by

the unresolved court cases. These present circumstances introduce an element of unpredictability

regarding the potential ability of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations to fulfill their goals, thereby making specific time lines more difficult to set. However, the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the NTC will need to consider which indicators are most suitable to fulfill short and long term needs, as the list of recommended list of indicators is presently inclusive of a variety of indicators suitable for both timeframes. For simplicity, indicators have been categorized according to the Sustainable Fisheries indicator framework for long- term use. However, many of the indicators would also be easily adapted to suit the short-term indicator framework.

98 For example, if a high degree of uncertainty exists about whether increased material wealth (a potentially proxy measure) is in fact a measure of increased well-being (the fundamental objective), then decision-makers may focus on the contribution of the fishery to material wealth of T’aaq-wiihak Nation members in spite of the fact that wealth may not be increasing well-being. 99United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2005)

The recommended indicator suite is not intended to be entirely exhaustive or fixed. Rather, it should be viewed as flexible and adaptable. It can accommodate new insights and knowledge held by local fisheries experts as well as the changing terms of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries.

Table 4: “External Variables” Indicators # Criterion Indicator(s) Source 1 Marine resource Stock abundance estimates for each Government records levels species included in the fishery 2 Product value Average value by weight (for each species T’aaq-wiihak landing slips included in the fishery) 3 Financial support Amount of funding granted by DFO to T’aaq-wiihak records, official from DFO permit monitoring and capacity-building communications from DFO within fisheries 4 Allocation of fish Total number of pieces allocated T’aaq-wiihak records, official communications from DFO, fishing plans

Table 5: “Fishery Attribute” Indicators # Criterion Indicator(s) Source 5 Fishing effort • Number of active fishing vessels, OR T’aaq-wiihak landing slip records • Boat trips, OR and fishery registration records • Variety of gear types used 6 Profitability of Net revenue generated by the fishery T’aaq-wiihak records fishery (total landings value minus management and administration costs) 7 Sanitation Defined impact scale rating for Purposeful sampling of T’aaq- cleanliness of on-board fish preparation wiihak fishers and/or Nations’ conditions fishery managers using structured interviews 8a Fishery Defined impact scale rating for “access Purposeful sampling of T’aaq- infrastructure to ice” wiihak fishers, fishery coordinator 8b Defined impact scale rating for “landing and/or Nations’ fishery managers sites” using structured interviews 8c Defined impact scale rating for “communication technology” 9 Unused allocations Number of pieces landed as percentage T’aaq-wiihak records, post-season of total pieces allocated review 10 Total volume of Total landings per fish species for each T’aaq-wiihak records, landings landings Nation 11 Sales distribution Percentage of total landings sold to T’aaq-wiihak landing slip records patterns local WCVI buyers

Table 6: “Community Sustainability” Indicators # Criterion Indicator(s) Source 12 Cultural Continuity Number of fishing trips Broad-based input from fishers: among fishers and accompanied by a family member of survey question and/or families (short-term) a younger generation structured interview 13a Cultural Continuity Number of speakers fluent in Nuu- First Peoples Heritage Language among community chah-nulth language per Nation and Culture Council 13b (long-term) Defined impact scale rating for re- Purposeful sampling of T’aaq- establishment of traditional wiihak fishers and/or Nations’ governance roles in resource fishery managers using management structured interviews 13 c Inclusion of traditional foods in diet: Broad-based input from fishers: number of meals including WCVI fish survey question and/or per week/month structured interview 14 Social stratification Gini coefficient measurement (used Calculations based on broad- within T’aaq-wiihak to measure inequality among values based input from T’aaq-wiihak fishers of a frequency distribution) based Nation fishers: survey question on fishers’ reported income and/or structured interview 15 Accessibility of Annual percent increase in the T’aaq-wiihak records of fishery for new number of active designees, and/or registrants entrants Estimated Cost of Entry by Vessel Survey question issued to fishers Size 16a Equitable Number of women employed in Consultation with T’aaq-wiihak employment management, harvest and post- fishers and/or Nations’ fishery opportunities for all harvest, and fishery-related sectors managers members of the living on reserve 16b T’aaq-wiihak Female to male median earnings Calculations based on broad- Nations ratio among those employed in the based input from T’aaq-wiihak fishery Nation fishers: survey question and/or structured interview 16c Number of low-barrier/minimal Consultation with T’aaq-wiihak investment jobs available in harvest fishers and/or Nations’ fishery and post-harvest and fishery-related managers sectors (i.e. deckhands, processing plant employment) 17 Migration into and Annual percent change in Nation records or Statistics away from population size, and/or Canada community Proportion of membership living on reserve as compared with away from home 18 Social Cohesion Defined impact scale rating to Broad-based input from T’aaq- within community describe social cohesion within wiihak Nation members: survey communities question and/or structured interview

19 Conflict and Defined impact scale rating using 1- Broad-based input from T’aaq- Cooperation among 5 ordinal scale to describe level of wiihak fishers: survey question fishers cooperation among fishers and/or structured interview 20a Prioritization of Percentage of Pacific fishery TAC Official communications from Aboriginal allocated to T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ DFO commercial fishing fisheries 20b rights Defined impact scale rating for on- Purposeful sampling of T’aaq- the-ground prioritization of wiihak Nations’ fishery managers Aboriginal fishing rights relative to using structured interviews recreational fishers (accounting for fishing grounds, openings, and gear restrictions)

Table 7: “Institutional Sustainability” Indicators # Criterion Indicator(s) Source 21a Partnership with DFO Defined impact scale rating to describe Purposeful sampling of intercultural understanding and recognition of T’aaq-wiihak fisheries the authority of the Ha’wiih by the DFO managers, Uu-a-thluk staff using structured 21b Defined impact scale rating to describe interviews collaborative decision making and transparency

22a Communication Defined impact scale for day-to-day Broad-based input from between communication regarding fishery openings etc. fishers: survey question 22b coordinators/ Defined impact scale rating for inclusivity, and/or structured managers and fishers involvement of fishers in decision-making interview

23a Compliance Number of warnings, citations or infractions T’aaq-wiihak records issued for non-compliance 23b Defined impact scale rating for perceived non- Purposeful sampling of compliance rate T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ fishery managers and fishers using structured interviews 24a Alignment of fishery Defined impact scale rating for timeliness of Purposeful sampling of management the fishery T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ 24b parameters with Defined impact scale rating for season-to- fishery managers and T’aaq-wiihak season predictability fishers using structured 24c opportunities and Defined impact scale rating for restrictiveness interviews interests of fishing boundaries. 24d Defined impact scale rating for flexibility of species harvested 24e Defined impact scale rating for bycatch retention

24f Defined impact scale rating for in-season predictability 25 Management Annual available funds T’aaq-wiihak records financial resources 26 Nations’ fishery Defined impact scale rating for management Purposeful sampling of management capacity T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ capacity fishery managers, NTC employees, and T’aaq- wiihak fisheries coordinator(s) using structured interviews 27a Fishers’ commercial Number of registrants/graduates in fisheries- Training records fishing knowledge related training programs database and business skills 27b Self-assessed knowledge using a defined Broad-based input from impact scale fishers: survey question and/or structured interview

Table 8: “Socio-economic Sustainability” Indicators # Criterion Indicator(s) Source 28 Physical safety of fishers Number of reported accidents or Consultation with incidents resulting in personal Nations’ fishery injuries per year managers 29 Economic benefit to non- Percentage of total landings sold to T’aaq-wiihak or DFO T’aaq-wiihak Nation members local WCVI buyers landing slip records

30 a Community scale economic Estimated number of fishery-related Consultation with benefit to T’aaq-wiihak jobs (i.e. marketing, harvest, T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ Nations processing, support industry) fishery managers and 30b Value added locally per T’aaq-wiihak fisheries fish(calculations: income captured coordinator from sale of averaged-size fish minus estimated total costs required to catch and process fish) 31 Material well-being of Dwellings requiring major repair, Statistics Canada community and/or Percentage of population receiving T’aaq-wiihak records social assistance payments,and/or Median income Statistics Canada

32 Community quality of life and Defined impact scale for self- Broad-based input from well-being assessed quality of life of T’aaq- T’aaq-wiihak Nation (subjective measure) wiihak Nation members members: survey question and/or structured interview

33 Fisher economic benefit Annual net revenue from T’aaq- Broad-based input from wiihak fishing and/or T’aaq-wiihak Nation Total annual income from fishery and fishers: survey question non-fishery sources and/or and/or structured interview Debt-to-income ratio and/or

Percentage of Nation members T’aaq-wiihak records of employed/active in T’aaq-wiihak designees and Nation fisheries membership records 34 Education: Formal education Educational attainment and/or Statistics Canada levels Post-secondary enrolment of Nation NTC records members and/or Enrolment of home-schooled K-12 NTC records students 35a Education: Transfer of Defined impact scale rating for Purposeful sampling of traditional knowledge inclusion of traditional knowledge in T’aaq-wiihak Nation school system members, teachers using structured interviews 35b Defined impact scale rating for Broad-based input from quality of mentorship opportunities fishers and deckhands: on the water survey question and/or structured interview

36a Community-level physical Rate of stillborn infant births Vancouver Island Health health Authority annual figures 36b Percent of population with Vancouver Island Health hypertension and percent of Authority annual figures population with diabetes 36c Blood pressure, glucose, and NTC’s Health Promotion cholesterol and Social Development branch 37a Community-level mental Suicide rate Vancouver Island Health 37b health and well-being Rate of drug and/or alcohol-induced Authority annual figures deaths 37c Percent of population suffering from depression 38 Job satisfaction Self-assessed satisfaction, 1-5 ordinal Broad-based input from scale to fishers, deckhands, those in post-harvest industry: survey question and/or structured interview

9.0 Data Collection Considerations

9.1 Measuring Criteria for Which Indicator Data are Not Yet Available For each indicator, an accompanying source of data has been identified. For certain criteria, existing

readily available indicator data may be used, and for others, data would need to be collected. In the

latter case, two options are suggested for collecting indicator data. The first is surveys, issued to larger

group of T’aaq-wiihak fishers and/or the T’aaq-wiihak Nation members more broadly. The second is the use of structured interviews, conducted with a small group of fisheries experts. These data collection methods are discussed below.

9.1.1 Widely-Issued Surveys to Fishers and T’aaq-wiihak Nation Members Broad-based input from fishers is recommended for the collection of a variety of data including natural measures (Indicators 12 and 33) and constructed measures for which a broad sampling of opinions and perspectives would be valuable (Indicators 32, 35b, and 38). Broad-based input may also be required to complement incomplete data measuring indirect socio-economic benefits of the fishery such as health or community-scale economic benefit (i.e. Indicator 31 and 34); In many cases, data from Statistics

Canada exists for some T’aaq-wiihak Nations and not others. Ideally, the same indicator data should be used for all five T’aaq-wiihak Nations in order to allow for comparability.

In cases where the group of interest is too large to permit data collection for each individual, the random sample survey method is recommended. By collecting indicator data using this method, this would help to ensure that the data are representative of the broader sample population, and could therefore be used as a robust indicator in court proceedings or DFO negotiations if required. Stratified random sampling may also be considered if the T’aaq-wiihak Nations were interested in learning about the social and economic welfare of various groups employed in the fishery (i.e. skippers, deckhands, post-harvest industry workers) or that of various groups among the T’aaq-wiihak Nation members more broadly (i.e. women as compared with men). In addition to sampling method issues, an additional factor

56 that would need to be considered is whether these surveys would be administered verbally through structured interviews or delivered in written form via the internet or by mail. Many fishery experts interviewed suggested that the least desirable of these options would be the issuance of surveys by mail due to concerns about high non-response rates. Indeed, the lack of available data from Statistics

Canada for many of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations is in many cases due to the high non-response rate to censuses issued by mail. In recognition of the high time and financial cost associated with assembling indicator data using these methods, the number of indicators requiring broad-based input from fishers and community members has been kept to a minimum in this report.

9.1.2 Structured Interviews Issued to Targeted Fisheries Experts

Surveys/interviews could also be issued to a smaller, targeted group of local fishery experts which may include fishers, deckhands, post-harvest industry employees, T’aaq-wiihak Nation fishery managers,

Ha’wiih, councillors, and NTC employees. This purposeful sampling method is suggested for use in obtaining figures for some natural measure data for which knowledgeable individuals in the community may be able to provide estimates, such as the “number of fishery-related jobs” (Indicator 30a) or

“number of low-barrier jobs in harvest or post-harvest sectors” (Indicator 16b). It may also be used in combination with constructed measure indicator data such as “cleanliness of on-board fish preparation conditions”, measured using a defined impact scale (Indicator 7). In the latter case, these fishery experts would be asked to provide a numerical rating assigned to various indicators in a survey or structured interview, and the average value assigned would be calculated. Potential experts have been identified in the above indicator recommendation tables (4-8) for each indicator requiring expert input.

This method provides a more time and cost-effective means of collecting data if the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations or the NTC are looking only to gain a snapshot understanding of the outcomes being produced by the fishery. The use of constructed measures in combination with expert opinion is also widely

57 recognized and has been previously used in fishery indicator reports by such organizations as the World

Bank.

9.2 Measuring Criteria for Which Indicator Data are Available

9.2.1 Existing Data Sources

For several indicators, primary data collection would not be necessary, as the information is already

available. Much of the available information for the categories of “external factors”, “fishery attributes”,

and “institutional sustainability”/“good governance” would be available from NTC fishery records.

Additionally, many of the long-term community-scale social and economic impacts of the fishery

(included in the long-term framework categories of “community sustainability” and “socio-economic sustainability”) are measured by Statistics Canada, Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), T’aaq- wiihak Nations’ office records, and the NTC Health Promotion department. Other sources include the

NTC Fishery Training database and the First Peoples Heritage Language and Culture Council.

9.2.2. Addressing Limitations of Data

Although much of the existing data are readily available and cost-effective to use, they do have some limitations. For example, while VIHA data are of high quality and are statistically sound, these data are only available at the regional level and are not able to be disaggregated. Similarly, Statistics Canada data are available for only some of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and not others. Statistics Canada data are also limited in the frequency of collection, as census data are only collected once every 5 years. This poses challenges for ensuring that the indicators are adequately responsive to change over time. For data that is held by the NTC and T’aaq-wiihak Nation offices, the statistical validity of the data may be compromised due to incomplete records (i.e. landing slips that were not submitted to the NTC), or due to non-random sampling of the population (i.e. bias in health data due to the fact that individuals visiting nurses are more likely to have health issues). However, these data are available at the

58 community scale, and are collected on an ongoing basis and are therefore more likely to be responsive to change over time. For a complete summary of the available data and their potential limitations, see

Appendix F.

There are several ways of addressing data limitations in those cases where data are available but incomplete and/or lacking statistical validity. First, the existing data could be combined with expert opinion using constructed measures. For example, while the percent of the population with hypertension is not available at the reserve scale, nurses who work in these communities could be asked to estimate whether this ailment is becoming more or less common, or remaining the same. This could then be transformed into a defined impact scale and included as an indicator. A second option is the use of other proxy indicators in the place of incomplete data, if additional proxy indicator data become available. However, it is worth noting that although constructed measures or already-existing proxy measures may be more cost-effective to use, natural measures are generally more robust. Therefore, permitted that the quality of the data are acceptable and that the associated criterion is practical to measure directly, it should be considered first.

10.0 Next Steps

10.1 Remaining Indicator Development Tasks The indicator suite presented in Section 8.2 represents the first phase of indicator selection and use;

several tasks remain to be addressed. Most immediately, it will be necessary to assess which indicators

put forward in this indicator suite are the most suitable for use in the short and long term. Second, it

will be necessary to develop a set of defined impact scale ratings for all constructed scale indicators, as

is demonstrated in Section 8.1.2 for the “Access to Ice” variable. Longer-term tasks include the

development of an appropriate set of Ecological Sustainability indicators for use in the long-term, which would allow for a more comprehensive data set and would complete the Sustainable Fisheries indicator

59 framework. Once the terms of the fishery are closer to being settled, a community visioning process— whereby the desired long-term, indirect outcomes of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries are identified—would be advisable. This would help to ensure that the measures of well-being are well aligned with local values and would likely help to create local interest and buy-in into the fishery planning process.100 In the early stages of data collection, it is also recommended that the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the NTC establish which indicators will be collected by which individuals or organizations and with what frequency101 (see potential data collection partners outlined in Section 9.3 below).

10.2 Use of Targets and/or Baseline Data It is advisable that the T’aaq-wiihak Nations consider the development of targets to enhance monitoring efforts. The use of targets and thresholds can further enhance the ease of interpretation of indicator- based data by providing comparison values against which this data can be evaluated.102 Targets for social objectives (i.e. number of excursions accompanied by a family member of a younger generation) are generally developed through a consultative process to ensure their alignment with local values and targets for ecological sustainability would likely require expert input. However, placeholder targets may also be used such as average household income of fishers reaching the provincial average. In the interim, using a baseline approach103—whereby the figures from the 2013 fishing year are used as

baseline data against which future years are compared—would be advisable. This strategy has been

used by the Atlantic Policy Congress104 in monitoring the outcomes of the Marshall fishery, an Aboriginal rights’ based fishery on the East Coast of Canada. The benefits accruing from any additional increases in allocation can be compared to the outcomes associated with past levels. If the baseline monitoring approach is used, it may be necessary to collect data for measuring some of indirect effects of the

100 Reed et al. (2006) and Innes & Booher (2000) 101United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2005) 102 Sherry et al. (2005) 103Reed et al. (2006) 104See APC (2005)

60 fishery of interest over the long-term (i.e. estimated number of fishery-related jobs or community level health and well-being). While these may not be valuable in short-term communications with the public, they will nevertheless allow for valuable comparisons over longer timescales. While short-term indicators may be collected every 1-2 years, it may be sufficient to monitor long-term socio-economic outcomes of the fishery every 5-10 years.

10.3Data Collection Partnerships

In order to facilitate data collection, the T’aaq-wiihak Nations and the NTC would benefit from working with other organizations in the area that are currently undertaking data collection efforts (See Table 9).

Table 9: Potential Data Collection Partnerships Organization and Contact Potential Partnership Clayoquot Biosphere Vital Signs reports monitoring many similar indicators for the Clayoquot Sound Trust, Adrienne Mason, Biosphere region, released every 2 years; data would not apply to the Acting Managing Director Mowachaht/Muchalaht Nation or Ehattesaht/Chinehkint Nation West Coast Aquatic, Organization has undertaken preliminary work in developing socio-economic Kevin Head, Marine Planning system indicators and targets; potential partner for gathering ecological and Economic Development sustainability data Administrators for the Standardizing the data that is presently collected by each Nation to ensure T’aaq-wiihak Nations comparability NTC’s Health Promotion Data that is presently recorded by the NTC’s Health Promotion and Social and Social Development, Development department is not intended for use in monitoring and evaluation Matilda Atleo and is therefore the least robust of all recommended indicators; data is also not able to be disaggregated by Nation but there is interest in further developing monitoring efforts Statistics Canada Much data from this source is not able to be disaggregated, but Statistics Mikelle Sasakamoose, Canada does consider special requests for data that is not available online at a Advisor, Aboriginal Liaison charge. Ms. Sasakamoose specializes in data for First Nations in Western Program, Western Region Canada and may assist with such matters. At present, some data is unavailable and Northern Territories, from certain Nations due to low response rates. Efforts to raise awareness Statistics Canada about the value of completing census forms may assist in this regard.

10.4 Communication of Indicators In the short term, one of the primary purposes of the indicator suite is likely to be the communication of

fishery outcomes to T’aaq-wiihak Nation members and the general public. As such, reporting should be both accurate and easily understood. The clarity of indicators can be enhanced if they are designed with

61 their audience in mind—the level of scientific detail should vary according to whether the indicator users are technical experts, decision-makers or the general public.105

There are several well-established methods for communicating indicators in a manner that facilitates interpretation that may be applicable in the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries context. The first potential means of communication is the use of “composite indicators” which are formed through the compilation of individual indicators into a single index on the basis of an underlying model.106 The advantage of this

communication method is that it permits complex or multi-dimensional issues to be summarized in one indicator, thereby eliminating the challenge of trying to find a trend in many separate indicators. It also allows for very straightforward comparisons among different communities, if required. The disadvantage of this method is that, by providing “big picture” data, composite indicators risk encouraging users to draw simplistic conclusions regarding fishery performance and they may obscure some serious failings in some dimensions.107 The creation of composite indicators, which requires weighting of individual indicators, also raises questions about transparency, the level of scientific rigour employed, and the potentially political question about the appropriate weighting of one indicator relative to others. If composite indicators are used, these questions should be addressed through the use of statistically sound principles combined with a transparent and participatory weighting process.

A second effective means of communicating indicators that allows for ease of interpretation is the use of visualization tools.108 These may be combined with the use of composite indicators, as is exemplified by the FAO’s use of “isometric kite diagrams”109, whereby performance in four dimensions is represented along various axes and ranges from desirable to undesirable. Another widely used visualization method,

105 Rice & Rochet (2005) 106Nardo et al. (2005) 107Nardo et al. (2005) 108 Potts & Haward (2001), Reed et al. (2006) 109FAO Fisheries Resources Division (1999)

62 which does not require the compilation of multiple indicators into one, is the use of a colour coding system to indicate whether indicators demonstrate a move towards or away from a target or desired direction of change. In this scheme, red indicates change in an undesired direction, yellow represents no change, and green represents change in a desired direction. Because of the colours used, this is often referred to as a “traffic light system”.110 Unlike the use of composite indicators, this method does

not raise issues of oversimplifying the data, but it does require the user to synthesize various

performance measures.

11.0 Conclusion This report has put forward a preliminary list of social and economic fishery indicators that is founded

upon the objectives held by fishers and fishery managers from the T’aaq-wiihak Nations as well as widely used, well-established criteria and indicators used in past fishery indicator studies. The indicator suite has also been designed to suit both the short-term and long-term needs of the T’aaq-wiihak

Nations in monitoring the outcomes of the fishery as well as the processes by which these outcomes are produced. The intent is that the recommended indicators and their future iterations may help the

Nations to navigate potential court cases and on-going negotiations to their advantage. Eventually, the indicators should serve as an effective tool to guide fishery management decisions and lead the T’aaq- wiihak Nations to a socially, economically, ecologically, and institutionally sustainable fishing future.

110See Newcastle University Key Performance Indicators (2009), City of Brisbane Performance Measures (2010) and Whistler 2020 (n.d.)

Sources Cited “2012 Suuhaa Fishery Post-Season Review” (Nov 2012). T’aaq-wiihak Nations report.

Adrianto, L., Y. Matsudo & Y. Sakuma (2005). “Assessing local sustainability of fisheries system: A multi- criteria participatory approach with the case of Yoron Island, Kagoshima prefecture, Japan.” Marine Policy 29: 9-23.

Arbour, D. B. Kuecks, & D. Edwards (2008). “Nuu-chah-nulth central region First Nations governance structures 2007/2008.” Ecotrust Publication. Web.19 Jun 2012. Atlantic Policy Congress (2005). “Post-Marshall implementation: A report of progress and future expectations for the Atlantic Policy Congress.” APC Reports and Activities. Web. 2 April 2012.

Bates, J., R. Murdie & D. Rhyne (1996).“Monitoring quality of life in Canadian communities: a feasibility study.” 2nd ed. Centre for Future Studies in Housing and Living Environments Report.

“BC Court of Appeal reconsiders Ahousaht and the Aboriginal right to harvest and sell fish” (July 2013). Aboriginal Law Bulletin. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP. Web. 11 Aug 2013.

Beckley, T. & T. Burkowsky (1999). “Social indicator approaches to assessing and monitoring forest community sustainability.”Canadian Forest Service Northern Forestry Centre Information Report NOR-X-360.

Besleme, K., E. Maser & J. Silverstein (1999). “A community indicators case study: addressing the quality of life in two communities.” San Francisco: Redefining Progress.

Bonzon, A. (2000). “Development of economic and social indicators for the management of Mediterranean fisheries.” Marine Freshwater Research 51: 493-500.

Boyd, H. (2002). “Fisheries indicators: Development and evaluation of indicators to monitor fisheries sustainability at the community level.” Diss.Dalhousie University.Web. 19 Jul 2012.

Boyd, H. &A. Charles (2009). “Creating community-based indicators to monitor sustainability of local fisheries.” Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 237-258.

Brundtland, G. (1987). “Our Common Future.” New York: Oxford University Press.

Burke, C. (2010). “When the fishing’s gone: Understanding how fisheries management affects the informal economy and social capital in the Nuxalk Nation”. Diss. University of British Columbia.Web. 24 Jun 2012.

Campbell, D., C. Burgess, S. Garnett & J. Wakerman (2011). “Potential primary health care savings for chronic disease care associated with Australian Aboriginal involvement in land management”. Health Policy 99: 83-89.

Charles, A. (1994). “Towards sustainability: The fishery experience.” Ecological Economics 11: 201-211.

Clay, P., P. Pinto da Silva & A. Kitts (2010). “Defining social and economic performance measures for catch share systems in the northeast U.S.”IIFET 2010 Montpellier Proceedings.

Drexhage, J. & D. Murphy (2010). “Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012.” Background Paper, High Level Panel on Global Sustainability. Web. 20 Nov 2012.

FAO Fisheries Resources Division (1999). “Indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries.” Rome: Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 8.

First Peoples’ Heritage, Language, and Culture Council (2011).“Tla-o-qui-aht”.First people’s language map of British Columbia. Web. 12 Jul 2012.

Fraser, E., A. Dougill, W. Mabee, M. Reed, & P. McAlpine (2006). “Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management.” Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2): 114-127.

Gislasson, G. (2007). “Economic contribution of the oceans sector on the West Coast of Vancouver Island.” Report prepared for the Canada Dept. of Justice.

Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels & D. Ohlson (2012).“Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices.” Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gough, J. (2000). “Managing Canada’s fisheries: From early days to the year 2000”. Georgetown: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Hart, M. (1999). “Guide to sustainable community indicators.” 2nded. North Andover: Hart Environmental Data.

Hendricks, A. (2005). “First Nations of the Pacific Northwest: Change and tradition.” Münster: Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe.

Hodge, T. (1995), “Assessing progress toward sustainability: Development of a systematic framework and reporting structure.” Ph.D. Diss. McGill University.

Innes, J. & D. Booher (2000). “Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence.” Planning Theory and Practice, 1(2): 173-186.

Isaac, T., M. Troke, A. Wanke & J. Walters (2009). “B.C. Supreme Court affirms Aboriginal rights to fish and sell fish on west coast of Vancouver Island and orders consultation”. McCarthy Tetrault. Web. 21 Nov 2012.

Jamieson, G, R. O’Boyle, J. Arbour, D. Cobb, S. Courtenay & R. Gregory (2001).“Proceedings of the workshop of objectives and indicators for ecosystem-based management. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Proceedings Series 2001/09, Sidney, BC.

Kusel, J. (2001). “Assessing well-being in forest dependent communities.” Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 13(1-2): 359-384.

Le Gallic, B. (2002). “Fisheries sustainability indicators: the OECD experience.” Report from joint workshop EEA-EC DG Fisheries-DG Environment on Tools for measuring (integrated) Fisheries Policy aiming at sustainable ecosystem. Web. 16 Dec 2012.

Leitmann, J. 1999. "Can city QOL indicators be objective and relevant? Towards a participatory tool for sustaining urban development." Local Environment 4(2): 169-180.

“Litigation victory for Nuu-chah-nulth: A historic day” (December 2009).Uu-a-thluk Newsletter, 5(3), pp. 1-2. Print.

Loucks, L. (2011). “Socio-economic assets to indicators.”Social Ecological Assessment.West Coast Aquatic. Web. 10 April 2012.

Maclaren, V. (1996).“Developing indicators of urban sustainability: A focus on the Canadian experience.” Toronto: ICURR Press.

Mak, C., J. Levine, G. Singh, & K. Chan (2010). In review.“A social-ecological history for nearshore ecosystems of the West Coast of Vancouver Island.” In T. A. Okey and L. A. Loucks, eds. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the Marine and Coastal Areas of the West Coast of Vancouver Island. West Coast Aquatic.

Morford, S. (2007). “A review of social indicators for land use planning in British Columbia.” Benchmark Consulting.Web. 19 April 2012.

Natcher, D., & C. Hickey (2002).“Putting the community back into community-based resource management: A criteria and indicators approach to sustainability.” Human Organization 61(4): 350-363.

Nardo, M., M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffman & E. Giovanni (2005). “Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide.” OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/3.

“Nations file in court while pursuing negotiation for economic fisheries” (Jul 2012). Uu-a-thluk Newsletter 7(4): 1, 4. Web. 21 Aug. 2012.

Newell, D. (1993). “Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries”. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

OECD (2011). “How’s life?: Measuring well-being.” OECD Publishing.

Olsen, S. (2003). “Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives.” Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 347-361.

Parkins, J., J. Varghese & R. Stedman (2004).“Identifying indicators of community sustainability in the Robson Valley, British Columbia.” BC Journal of Ecosystem Management 4(2): 1-19.

Parlee, B. & J. O’Neil (2007). “The Dene way of life: Perspectives on health from Canada’s North.” Journal of Canadian Studies 41(3): 112-133.

Pearse, P. (1981). “Conflict and opportunity: Toward a new policy for Canada’s pacific fisheries.”A Preliminary Report of the Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy. Vancouver. Web.

Pollnac, R., S. Abbott-Jamieson, C. Smith, M. Miller, M. Clay & B. Oles (2008). “Toward a model for fisheries social impact assessment.” Marine Fisheries Review 68(1-4): 1-18.

Potts, T. & M. Haward (2001). "Sustainability indicator systems and Australian fisheries management" Maritime Studies 5(1): 117.

Reed, M., E. Fraser & A. Dougill (2006).“An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities.” Ecological Economics 59: 406-418.

Rice, J. & M. Rochet (2005). “A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management.” Journal of Marine Science 62: 516-527.

Robin, G., L. Failing, M. Harston, G. Long, T. McDaniels& D. Ohlson (2012).“Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices.” Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Scholz, A., E. Enno Tamm, A. Day, D. Edwards & C. Steinback (2004). “Catch 22: Conservation, communities and the privatization of the B.C. fisheries.” Ecotrust economic, social and ecological impact study. Web. 16 Aug 2012. Sherry, E., Halseth, R., Fondahl, G., Karjala, M., & Leon, B. (2005). “Local-level criteria and indicators: an Aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest management.” Forestry 78(5): 513-539.

Shields, D., S. Solar & W. Martin (2002).“The role of values and objectives in communicating indicators of sustainability.” Ecological Indicators (2): 149-160

Smith, C. & P. Clay (2010). “Measuring subjective and objective well-being: Analyses from five marine commercial fisheries.” Human Organization 69(2): 158-168.

Smith, T. (2012). “Supreme Court of Canada won't review B.C. native-fishing-rights case.” 29 March 2012. Postmedia News.Web. 3 April 2012.

StatsCan (2006). “2006 Aboriginal community data initiative: Hesquiaht First Nation”. Web. 18 Jul 2012.

Stedman,C., J. Parkins& T. Beckley (2004). “Resource dependence and community well-being in rural Canada.” Rural Sociology, 69(2): 213-234.

Steel, D. (10 October 2012). “T’aaq-wiihak fisheries still frustrated by ‘negotiations’”. Ha-shilth-sa.Web. 16 Dec. 2012. “Supreme Court of Canada Directs BC Court of Appeal to Reconsider Ahousaht Fishing Rights Decision”. 17 April 2012. Bull, Houser & Tupper LLP. Web. 10 Nov 2012.

“T’aaq-wiihak salmon fisheries management plan” (2012). Proposal submitted to the DFO by the T’aaq- wiihak Nations.

“Trial Updates” (2012).Uu-a-thluk.Web. 2 Jun 2012.

Tucker, J. (2004). "Social indicators."Encyclopedia of evaluation. Ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 394. SAGE Reference Online.Web. 24 April 2012.

Turning Point Initiative (2004). “Our future harvest: a new approach to coastal First Nations’ commercial fisheries”. Web. 19 May 2012.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2005).“Promoting local economic development through strategic planning”. Local Economic Development Series, Vol. 2.

“Victory for Nuu-chah-nulth” (December 2009).Uu-a-thluk.Web. 21 Jun 2012.

Wood, A. (2001). “Native involvement in commercial fisheries”. Prepared for Native Fishing Association by Allen Wood Consulting Inc. Web. 19 May 2012.

World Bank (May 2012). “Evaluation of new Fishery Performance Indicators (FPIs): A case study of the blue swimming crab fisheries in Indonesia and the Phillipines.” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 52.

Appendix A: T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicator Report Terms of Reference 1. The T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicator Researcher will track indicators of change resulting from T’aaq- wiihak fisheries. 2. The T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Indicator Researcher is authorized to do the following activities: a. Conduct a literature review to ensure that the researcher understands the Ahousaht et al 2009 court decision, indicator use in the literature, and general fishing practices in British Columbia. i. The review will include the literature on the social, cultural, and economic benefits of arrangements and/or access of Aboriginal communities to land and/or resources. ii. The review will also include the nature of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries communities: Ehattesaht, Mowachaht-Muchalaht, Hesquiaht, Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht (including demographics, economy) iii. The review will include the nature of the T’aaq-wiihak fisheries: a short history about the Ahousaht et al. court case, interactions with DFO since the 2009 court ruling b. Travel at least twice to Vancouver Island to attend T’aaq-wiihak meetings and/or to visit T’aaq- wiihak communities to interview fishers and negotiators c. Conduct a community consultation process which is used to develop criteria for indicators. This process will include: i. Interviews with at least two fishers or community negotiators/representatives from each community, conducted either individually, or through a focus group, to discuss community goals and objectives with regards to T’aaq-wiihak fisheries. This is part of the community consultation process which is used to develop criteria for indicators. ii. Meetings with other area groups doing indicator research and find out where linkages can be made (i.e., West Coast Aquatic, Clayoquot Biosphere Trust, etc.) d. Provide a survey of recommended indicators to the T’aaq-wiihak Table and Uu-a-thluk. e. Provide links to where future researchers can find information required to track the proposed indicators.

Expected Results

1. A survey of recommended indicators will be provided to the T’aaq-wiihak table and Uu-a-thluk. 2. The researcher will provide baseline information on socio-economic indicators.

Products/Reports to provide to DFO

1. A survey of recommended indicators will be provided to the T’aaq-wiihak table and Uu-a-thluk. 2. The researcher will provide baseline information on socio-economic indicators.

Appendix B: Secondary Sources Used Publication Name Description

1 2012 T’aaq-wiihak Fisheries Proposal for 2012 fishery submitted to DFO in Feb Management Plan 2012 2 June 2012 response letter to DFO Response to counter offer made by DFO submitted Regional Director Sue Farlinger June 2012 3 2012 Suuhaa Fishery Post-Season Report summarizing successes, challenges of 2012 Review interim fishery 4 Ehattesaht/Chinehkint Rights-Based Visioning Plan for T’aaq-wiihak fisheries developed by Fisheries Plan ECFN Steering Committee 5 Fisheries for the Future NTC publication, first in a series on preferred environmental resource management practices 6 The Nuu-chah-nulth people and the NTC publication intended as an official position paper West Coast fishery: A plan for survival on the West Coast Fishery 7 Vision of Healthy West Coast WCA Vision statement based on 200 vision and values Communities and Economy surveys, marine sector interviews and several stakeholder and community meetings

8 Uu-a-thluk Strategic Plan 2006/2007 Uu-a-thluk publication intended to provide direction on moving towards shared goals

Appendix C: Objectives Expressed in Secondary Data Sources Data Source Alignment Objective Expressed in Data Source with Core Objective # 2012 T’aaq-wiihak 1 T’aaq-wiihak fisheries harvest in the Nuu-chah-nulth fishing area Fisheries Management 4 Prioritization after food fishery and conservation Plan June 2012 Response 1 Sufficient time to take full advantage of fishing opportunities Letter to DFO 5 Increased financial support from DFO to implement plans, negotiation process: meaningful engagement in good faith 1, 4 Restrictions on fishing areas in the ha-houlthee established by Ha’wiih unless for reasons of conservation 8 Returning fisheries to their rightful place as strong social and economic support 4 Recognition of the priority of T’aaq-wiihak Nations’ Aboriginal right 1 Providing predictability from year to year 2012 Suuhaa Fishery 1 Increased advance warning needed Post-Season Review 2, 3 Increase economic viability 5 Increase number of co-operative management opportunities (i.e. biological monitoring, enforcement on the water), increase DFO manager attendance at planning meetings 1 Reduce restrictiveness of fishing area 2 Promote mentorship opportunities for new fishers 9 Inter-generational learning of fishing practices and culture 3 Capture short term opportunities such as biological monitoring 10 Business skill development and networking/capacity building; increase availability of courses offered providing practical skills 5, 7 Increase input regarding timing of openings 7 Improved communication from fishery managers and coordinators to fishers (especially regarding openings)

Data Source Alignment Objective Expressed in Data Source with Core Objective # Ehattesaht/Chinehkint 5 Relationship built on mutual respect, appropriate compensation and recognition of authority of Ha’wiih; Rights-Based Fisheries collaborative governance and mutual capacity building Plan 3, 9 Provision of viable livelihoods for both present and future generations 4 Priority access granted after conservation 5, 7 Fishing management compatible with the principles of Hishukish tsa’walk values (integrated through increased role of Ehattesaht/Chinehkint members in management) 10 Capacity building for those involved in fishery (management, fishers, related industry) 3 Maximizing economic benefit through participation in every aspect of the fishery (management, marketing, fuel sales) Fisheries for the 4 Increased autonomy and resource management authority Future None Environmental stewardship to ensure sustainability 8 Achieving positive social outcomes through effective environmental management The Nuu-chah-nulth 4 Increased ownership and control of fisheries people and the West 5 Cooperative relationship with the DFO Coast fishery None Environmental stewardship Vision of Healthy West 2 Fair and transparent access to coastal resources Coast Communities 4 Respect of First Nations rights and Economy 9 Cultural integrity None Sustainable resource management Uu-a-thluk Strategic 2 Increased access: “getting more people out on the land” Plan 2006/2007 4, 5 Protecting Title and rights of access None Sustainable resource management for the benefit of future generations

Appendix D: Interview Coding of Community Objectives Fisheries Objectives Obj. 1: Maximize alignment of fishery management Obj. 2 Maximize Obj.3 Maximize Obj. 4 Improve parameters with T’aaq-wiihak opportunities and interests accessibility of community-scale on-the-ground

Sub-Obj. A: Sub-Obj. B Sub-Obj. C: fishery for new economic benefit prioritization of

entrants derived from fisheries Aboriginal commercial Improve Decrease Maximize fishing rights Affiliation of Interview timeliness of restrictiveness of predictability of Interviewee access fishing ground fishery allocations Number( boundaries across fishing *more seasons than one person in interview) Ahousaht 1* X X X member 2 X X 5 6 X X X X X 8* X X X 9 X Hesquiaht 4* member 7 18 X 19 X Tla-o-qui-aht 12 X member 15 X 16 X Ehattesaht 3 X X member 17 X X Mowachaht/ 13 X Muchalaht 14 X X member T’aaq-wiihak 10 X X fisheries 11 X X X X expert 20 X X X

Interview Coding of Community Objectives (Continued) Fisheries Objectives Obj. 5 Obj. 6 Obj.7 Obj. 8 Obj. 9 Obj. 10 Strengthen Increased Maximize openness of Maximize Increase Maximize partnership compliance communication between fishery health and cultural fishers’ with DFO with managers and fishers well-being of continuity commercial regulations Sub-Obj. A Sub-Obj. B T’aaq-wiihak within fishery fishing Affiliation of Interview among Maximize Increase members knowledge and interviewee Number fishers effective consultation & business skills operation of engagement of day-to-day fishers in setting fishing regulatory activities parameters of the fishery Ahousaht 1* X X X 2 X X X X 5 X X 6 X X 8* X X 9 X X X X Hesquiaht 4* X X X 7 X X X 18 X X 19 X X Tla-o-qui- 12 X aht 15 16 X X Ehattesaht 3 X X X X 17 X X X Mowachaht/ 13 X X X Muchalaht 14 X X T’aaq-wiihak 10 X X fisheries 11 X X X expert 20 X X X X

Appendix E: Literature-Based Indicators Adapted to the T’aaq-wiihak Context Indicator Criterion Used in Literature Adaptation to T’aaq-wiihak context Framework Category External Subsidies Financial support from DFO Factors Fishery Processing overcapacity Unused allocation Attributes Fishery infrastructure Fishery Infrastructure: communication infrastructure, landing sites, ice access

Institutional Management inclusivity, transparency, Working relationship with DFO Sustainability and participation Openness of communication between coordinators/managers and fishers: • Integration of traditional knowledge use into management • Effective operation of day-to-day fishing activities Appropriateness of regulation Alignment of fishery with T’aaq-wiihak interests and opportunities • timeliness of openings • restrictiveness of fishing ground boundaries • predictability of fishery allocations across fishing seasons

Community Fishing Traditions/Culture Cultural continuity: Sustainability • Inclusion of traditional foods in diet • Inter-generational fishing expeditions • Practice of traditional governance mechanisms Access for people dependent on local Prioritization of Aboriginal commercial fishing rights fishing relative to access granted to non-locals Participation of women in management, Equitable employment opportunities for all members of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations harvest and post-harvest sectors

Socio- Literacy/education Formal education levels economic Transfer of traditional knowledge Sustainability

Appendix F: Community Well-Being Data and Sources Data Source(s) Availability Frequency Data Details Potential limitations by Nation of Collection Population Size of Statistics All Every 5 years ACDI data are ideal because it includes Infrequency of data collection T’aaq-wiihak Canada Aboriginal population on all Nations’ Nations (on- territories** Low response rate in several communities reserve) means data not perfectly comparable (some Aboriginal Population Profiles provide data are for all Nations’ territories, other is population estimates for Indian Band for main reserve only) Areas

ACDI data available for Hesquiaht and Tla-o-qui-aht only Membership All Varies by Obtained from: Membership data more current but may be records held Nation Ehattesaht: Darlene Lariviere a lack of detail regarding on/off reserve split by Nations Hesquiaht: Cecil Sabbas Ahousaht: Pam Frank Tla-o-qui-aht: Karl Wagner Mowachaht/Muchalaht: Cynthia Rayner Employment Rate Statistics 2006 data for Roughly every 2006 employment rate data available in Due to the seasonality of many jobs (i.e. and Unemploy- Canada Tla-o-qui-aht 5 years 1) ACDI and many fishers employed only in spring- ment rate (ACDI), 2) Community Profile Reports summer or summer-fall), census responses Hesquiaht may overestimate or underestimate (ACDI) and Employment measured as percentage of employment rate depending on time of year Ehattesaht population above the age of 15 census completed (Community “engaged in any work at all for pay or in Profile) self-employment or without pay in a There is often a lag between the release of family farm, business or census data and the release of ACDI data professional practice” (i.e. 2006 data released in 2009) Non-response rate above 25% therefore data suppressed for Mowachaht/Muchalaht and Ahousaht

Data Source(s) Availability Frequency of Data Details Potential limitations by Nation Collection Educational Statistics 2006 data Roughly every Educational Attainment Data Released There is often a lag between the release of Attainment Canada available only 5 years in: census data and the release of ACDI data for Tla-o-qui- 1) ACDI data and (i.e. 2006 data released in 2009) aht (ACDI) 2) Community Profiles Hesquiaht Non-response rate above 25% therefore (ACDI) and Educational attainment described in data suppressed for Mowachaht/Muchalaht Ehattesaht Statistics Canada documents as the total and Ahousaht Nations population with 1) less than high school, (Community 2) high school completed, or 3) post- Note that Statistics Canada data may Profile) secondary education completed. underestimate the level of educational Recommended measure: percent of attainment achieved among members population with high school education because it includes on-reserve members or higher only and many members with a post- secondary education may be working off- reserve

NTC Available for Annual All post-secondary enrolment that is There may be discrepancies between the all 5 Nations funded by the NTC is tracked by the total number of members enrolled in post- NTC’s Post-secondary department for secondary education and the number Ehattesaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht, Tla- receiving post-secondary funding from the o-qui-aht, and Hesquiaht. NTC. However, it is estimated that those members who are pursuing post-secondary Ahousaht tracks post-secondary education and not receiving NTC funding are enrolment of the Nation’s members few and likely living away from home and independently with little contact to the Nation.

Enrolment for home-schooled students between kindergarten and grade 12 is tracked by the NTC. This data may be useful in tracking high school completion rates

Data Source(s) Availability Frequency of Data Details Potential limitations by Nation Collection Dwellings Statistics 2006 data Roughly every Statistics Canada definition of major There is often a lag between the release of requiring major Canada available only five years repairs: “Major census data and the release of ACDI data repair for Tla-o-qui- repairs refer to the repair of defective (i.e. 2006 data released in 2009) aht (ACDI) plumbing or electrical wiring, structural Hesquiaht repairs to walls, floors or Non-response rate above 25% therefore (ACDI) and ceilings” data suppressed for Mowachaht/Muchalaht Ehattesaht and Ahousaht Nations This indicator is measured as a (Community percentage, i.e. dwellings requiring Profile) major repair as percentage of total occupied dwellings Median Income Statistics 2006 data Roughly every Statistics Canada defines earnings as: For privacy reasons, income statistics are (per individual) Canada available only 5 years “income received during the calendar publicly available for communities with a for Tla-o-qui- year before the census as wages and population over 250 people. Therefore, aht (ACDI) salaries, net income from a non-farm Ehattesaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht, and unincorporated business or professional Hesquiaht income data was suppressed in practice, and net farm self-employment 2006. Ahousaht income data was income.” suppressed due to a non-response rate of 25% or more. Median earnings: the amount at which half of those with earnings had a higher amount of earnings and half of those with earnings had a lower amount of earnings.

Percentage of NTC All Nations Ongoing NTC tracks social assistance payments Although slightly less specific than population community for Ehattesaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht, monitoring income directly, this indicator receiving social and human Tla-o-qui-aht, and Hesquiaht. Ahousaht may be used to monitor economic well- assistance services and keeps monitors this data independently being of the T’aaq-wiihak Nations for those payments Ahousaht that do not meet the minimum population size for income data to be shared publicly by Statistics Canada

Data Source(s) Availability Frequency of Data Details Potential limitations by Nation Collection Health: Blood NTC’s Health All 5 Nations Ongoing, Blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol Nurses record may not currently track pressure, glucose Promotion could be of Nuu-chah-nulth Nations members results of individuals by Nation, therefore an & cholesterol and Social aggregated by living on-reserve are measured several arrangement would need to be made with Development year times per year by nurses in order to the NTC’s Health Promotion and Social (contact: monitor general health of population Development department in order to begin Matilda recording the Nation to which patients Atleo) belong

Results of blood tests not representative of entire population, data may overestimate the occurrence of high blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose levels as healthy individuals not as closely monitored Nursing NTC’s Health All 5 Nations Ongoing, Nurses record may not currently track encounters Promotion could be results of individuals by Nation, therefore an (number of and Social aggregated by arrangement would need to be made with Nation members Development year the NTC’s Health Promotion and Social accessing (Contact: Development department in order to begin healthcare)* Matilda recording the Nation to which patients Atleo) belong.

Number of nursing encounters could serve as a positive or a negative indicator (i.e. an increase in nursing encounters could be positive if it meant more individuals were accessing healthcare to address issues preventatively), therefore it would be best if complemented by an average life expectancy measure or other basic well- being measure).

Data Source(s) Availability Frequency of Data Details Potential limitations by Nation Collection Aboriginal First Peoples All 5 Nations Annually Data are collected by the T’aaq-wiihak language fluency Heritage, Nations independently but held Language and centrally by the First Peoples Heritage, Culture Language and Culture Council Council (contact Barb Maltipi at barbm@fphlc c.ca) Statistics % with Every 5 years Knowledge of Aboriginal language is Frequency of data collection is limited in Canada knowledge of defined by Statistics Canada as “the frequency as compared with data that is Aboriginal ability to conduct a conversation in that collected by the First People’s Heritage, language data language” Language and Culture Council available only for Tla-o-qui- Note: the ACDI is the only Statistics Canada aht and document that records knowledge of Hesquiaht in Aboriginal language specifically. Community 2006 profiles (which may be available for those Nations that are not included in the ACDI reports) include only data about “language spoken most often at home” and “mother tongue”