Working Models for Fisheries Collaborative Management
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Working Models for Fisheries Collaborative Management Prepared for: First Nation Marine Society 544 Centre Street Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 4Z3 Prepared by: Russ Jones PO Box 98 Queen Charlotte Haida Gwaii V0T 1S0 April 18, 2006 Acknowledgments Thanks to Natalie Nelson, Brian Assu and Teresa Ryan of the First Nation Marine Society for their assistance during various stages of preparing this report. Thanks also to the people who took time to talk to me and provide up-to-date information about the collaborative management projects that are reviewed in this report. A list of the individuals that I contacted is provided in the Appendix. Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 2. Tier 1 Case Studies ................................................................................................. 3 2.1. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.................................................... 3 2.2. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission .......................................... 8 2.3. Uu-a-thluk (Nuu-chah-nulth Fisheries Program)...................................... 13 2.4. Skeena Fisheries Commission .................................................................. 17 2.5. Haida Fisheries Program........................................................................... 20 2.6. Inter-Tribal Fisheries Framework (BCAFC Proposal) ............................. 23 2.7. Comparison of Tier 1 Models................................................................... 25 3. Tier 2 Case Studies ............................................................................................... 29 3.1. Nisga’a Joint Fisheries Management Committee ..................................... 29 3.2. Fraser Watershed Process ......................................................................... 33 3.3. Coastal First Nations – Turning Point Initiative....................................... 36 3.4. Comparison of Tier 2 Models................................................................... 40 4. Tier 3 Case Studies ............................................................................................... 45 4.1. West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board..................... 45 4.2. Skeena Watershed Committee .................................................................. 48 4.3. DFO Integrated Harvest Planning Committee (Salmon).......................... 51 4.4. Comparison of Tier 3 Models................................................................... 54 5. Criteria for Successful Collaborative Management.............................................. 57 6. Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................... 63 7. References............................................................................................................. 65 Appendices.................................................................................................................... 69 List of Persons Contacted ............................................................................................. 71 Harvard Project – Critical Factors in First Nation Governance.................................... 73 List of Figures Figure 1. A Three Tiered Multi-Level Collaborative Management Process. ................ 2 Figure 2. Location of NWIFC member tribes................................................................ 5 Figure 3. Location of Columbia River Tribes and major dams................................... 10 Figure 4. Discussion Process between DFO and Council of the Haida Nation (CHN)22 Figure 5. Location of Coastal First Nation/Turning Point First Nations..................... 40 Figure 6. The Integrated Harvest Planning Committee ............................................... 51 Figure 7. A Simple Collaborative Management (CM) Body....................................... 61 Figure 8. A 3-Level Collaborative Management (CM) Body. .................................... 61 List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Tier 1 Models........................................................................ 28 Table 2. Catch and Value of Nisga’a Individual Sale Fishery..................................... 31 Table 3. Comparison of Tier 2 Models........................................................................ 43 Table 4. Comparison of Tier 3 Models........................................................................ 56 1. Introduction This report was prepared to assist the First Nation Marine Society to plan how it might get involved in collaborative fisheries and ocean management. The First Nation Marine Society currently provides a cooperative service to 26 First Nations on Vancouver Island and the southern B.C. mainland that involves catch and delivery of food, social and ceremonial fish. This report researches and describes a variety of organizations involved in collaborative fisheries or ocean management. The project was intended to expand on examples described in Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery (First Nation Panel 2004: 60-67). The First Nation Panel report elaborated on a fisheries decision-making approach developed by First Nation leaders over a decade ago. Those leaders identified the need for processes that allowed for dialogue among First Nation alone (Tier 1), between First Nations and government (Tier 2), and between First Nations, government and other parties (Tier 3), as illustrated in Figure 1. Two-way interactions could occur between these processes such as information flow or representatives that participate in several processes. Figure 1 also shows how the three-tiered approach might be implemented at local, sub-regional, regional, and national levels. The First Nations Marine Society is considering involvement at the sub-regional level but would need to specify their interests in Tier 1, 2 or 3 processes or a combination of these and identify their purpose before proceeding. The main questions that were answered for each organization studied included: purpose of the organization; its history of formation and working together; structure, size and current members; current activities; successes; challenges; and critical stages in development. Section 2 describes and compares six organizations with a Tier 1 focus. Section 3 and 4 does the same for each of three Tier 2 and Tier 3 organizations, respectively. Section 5 proposes criteria for successful collaborative management and Section 6 provides a summary and recommendations. 1 Figure 1. A Three Tiered Multi-Level Collaborative Management Process. (diagram adapted from DFO 2005) 2 2. Tier 1 Case Studies This section describes six organizations whose primary focus is on processes involving First Nations or U.S. Tribes alone. Four Canadian models and two U.S. models are described. All are working examples except for the Intertribal Fisheries Framework process, a model that was proposed by the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, but never adopted by First Nations. 2.1. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Introduction The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) provides a forum for treaty tribes in western Washington State to coordinate management of their fisheries that is essential for the exercise of their treaty rights. NWIFC has grown and their mandate has expanded over time as new challenges have surfaced. Member tribes who signed treaties in the 1850s were neighbouring Coast Salish, Quileute, and Makah cultural groups. NWIFC has been operation for 32 years. History and Purpose The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) was formed by U.S. Treaty Tribes in western Washington State in 1974. It formed in response to the Boldt decision (U.S. v. Washington) that allocated them 50% of the salmon catch and established the tribes as co-managers of the resource. The US Tribes needed a means to work together and bring unified tribal positions to federal and state fisheries management agencies. The purpose of NWIFC according to their Constitution (October 5, 1984) is: • “To provide supplemental and supportive services to those tribal organizations who express a need for such services and desire that such services be provided by a central coordinating body. These services shall include: public relations, biological, technical, administrative, and other services that are identified and made available to the member Tribes by the Commission; • To act as a central clearinghouse for information and data in the areas of public relations, technical and management services, environmental issues, and political developments; • To act as a coordinating body in order to provide a forum to express, communicate, and resolve the issues and concerns identified unanimously by the member Tribes of the Commission and to provide a vehicle and mechanism to reach a mutually agreeable position or course of action acceptable to the parties concerned.” 3 In 1974, U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt ruled the tribes had reserved the right to harvest half of the harvestable salmon and steelhead in western Washington. The “Boldt Decision” was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979. It required tribal and state fisheries staff to work together for the purpose of developing fisheries management regimes to ensure harvest opportunities for Indians and non-Indians alike. NWIFC is essentially a coordinating body and individual tribes conduct most of their own fisheries activities. Each of the tribes either have their own cooperative