Indigenous peoples and marine protected area governance: A Mi’kmaq and Atlantic Canada case study
Abstract
Introduction
Setting the context
MPA governance approaches in Canada
Mi’kmaq governance
Mi’kmaq Aboriginal and treaty rights
Eastern Shore Islands case study
Methodology
Participant groups | Number of participants | Number of interviews | Advisory committee | Oceans Working Group | Otherc | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Mi’kmaq | DFOa | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Community Organization | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||
ENGO & Academia | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
Publicc | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
Mi’kmaq | Mi’kmaqa,b | 7 | 6 | 2 | 4 | |
Total | 20 | 17 | 11 | 5 | 2 |
Results
Identified challenges in the current MPA process
Non-Mi’kmaq | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Themes | Mi’kmaq | Comm. Org. | DFO | ENGO & Academia | Public | All participants |
Systemic barriers | 46% | 7% | 9% | 33% | 5% | 42% |
Lack of understanding | 39% | 23% | 5% | 21% | 13% | 21% |
Fisheries conflicts | 39% | 17% | 5% | 22% | 17% | 20% |
Capacity | 46% | 6% | 6% | 43% | 0% | 11% |
Mi’kmaq absence | 13% | 33% | 0% | 47% | 7% | 5% |
Systemic barriers
Non-Mi’kmaq | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theme and sub-themes | Mi’kmaq | Comm. Org. | DFO | ENGO & Academia | Public | All participants |
Systemic barriers | 46% | 7% | 9% | 33% | 5% | 42% |
Inadequate processes | 38% | 4% | 11% | 36% | 7% | 41% |
Power imbalances | 68% | 8% | 0% | 24% | 0% | 19% |
Legislation | 19% | 10% | 29% | 38% | 5% | 15% |
Knowledge valuation | 36% | 16% | 5% | 42% | 0% | 14% |
Trust | 86% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 7% | 11% |
DFO is like a monster and it doesn’t know its feet from its hands or its brain from its hands, there is so many moving parts—it doesn’t know what this arm is doing and this leg doesn’t know what this leg is doing, so at the end of the day it doesn’t make any sense because [DFO departments and regions] don’t talk to each other—a ton of branches for Aboriginal fisheries from Gulf to Maritimes. [DFO] are just so disorganized—[DFO] [doesn’t] know what is going on in other regions … (M1)
… it’s all about gains for themselves—making a good life for themselves—they [non-Indigenous fishers] don’t care about the generations coming … it’s a conservation area for what they see fit—if there is a lucrative lobster region—they [DFO] will allow that fishery to continue—so they will cater to industry and always cater to the industry. (M1)
… Oceans Act applies to everything we do … and there is nowhere in the Act that says that the Minister can delegate to a First Nations or to Industry. (Cr6)
… we don’t get to see everyone’s reports [MEKS] —there seems to be a focus on traditional use and less so on values and what the cultural components are—a lot of geology, a lot of old, old history but nothing that really tells anybody about who we are? What we believe in? That is a big gap that we have—so the cultural content can be very limited. (M14)
Lack of understanding
Non-Mi’kmaq | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theme and sub-themes | Mi’kmaq | Comm. Org. | DFO | ENGO & Academia | Public | All participants |
Lack of understanding | 39% | 22% | 4% | 21% | 13% | 21% |
Mi’kmaq rights | 25% | 25% | 5% | 20% | 25% | 30% |
Mi’kmaq culture, values, & knowledge | 32% | 26% | 5% | 21% | 16% | 28% |
Differences in worldviews | 58% | 11% | 5% | 26% | 0% | 28% |
Mi’kmaq governance structures | 44% | 33% | 0% | 11% | 11% | 13% |
… the Eastern Shore Fishermen’s Protective Association interpretation of that is, in pursuit of a moderate livelihood, we can fish being Mi’kmaq whenever we want, wherever we want and with how many traps we want and not bound by the DFO rules and regulations …(C9)
… [rights have been] deemed by the courts and [therefore] have got to be recognized but at the same time there has to be some kind of fairness too within the MPA—can’t have one group with rights potentially destroying the effectiveness of the MPA. (C12)
Fisheries conflicts
… Where the real consultations need to take place is [implementing the Marshall decision]—we are having issues with that [implementing Marshall] and I have issues with that because it undermines the process and our ability for Mi’kmaq to exercise our rights in certain areas—if [DFO] block them off, it is infringement … (M1)
Non-Mi’kmaq | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theme and sub-themes | Mi’kmaq | Comm. Org. | DFO | ENGO & Academia | Public | All participants |
Fisheries conflicts | 39% | 17% | 5% | 22% | 17% | 20% |
Fisheries rights | 63% | 7% | 4% | 11% | 15% | 42% |
Fisheries access | 9% | 27% | 5% | 41% | 18% | 34% |
Clarity of rights | 40% | 20% | 7% | 13% | 20% | 24% |
Identified opportunities
Non-Mi’kmaq | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theme and sub-themes | Mi’kmaq | Comm. Org. | DFO | ENGO & Academia | Public | All participants |
Current MPA process | 55% | |||||
Consultation | 65% | 6% | 20% | 6% | 3% | 54% |
Mi’kmaq approaches & principles | 43% | 21% | 21% | 14% | 0% | 24% |
MEKS | 44% | 11% | 33% | 0% | 11% | 16% |
Mi’kmaq language | 33% | 0% | 33% | 33% | 0% | 5% |
Alternative governance approaches | 45% | |||||
Co-governance | 53% | 14% | 7% | 25% | 0% | 60% |
Indigenous-led governance | 26% | 0% | 5% | 68% | 0% | 40% |
Identified opportunities in the current MPA process
… I think [Indigenous knowledge and Two-Eyed Seeing] are critical when talking about conservation, I think [they provide a] fuller view of conservation and sustainability and a way of seeing the world that has to be incorporated. (C16)
[The MEKS shows] how Mi’kmaq have been there for millennia and combines the lists of place-names … [it is] an important piece to remind the public … that the Mi’kmaq have been there, and this is an important area for them, [it] helps bring that information to the forefront and facilitate learning. (Cr6)
… using Mi’kmaq language and in Mi’kmaq territory within agreements and within governance and conceptualizing governance is really, really critical … because … our ideas, our culture, our ways of being as individuals and societies is really encapsulated in our language but incorporating language into the ways that governance of an area … can really change how people approach their role within that [governance]. (M15)
Alternative governance approaches
Co-management or co-governance arrangement with community (particularly fish harvesters) and rightsholders … [where]… the stakeholders including the community, [the people who are going to be most impacted], and rightsholders, all need to be actively involved from the very beginning of the process, involved in decision-making, and management of the site once it gets established. (E11)
Discussion
Importance of consultation
Need for an alternative governance approach
Lack of understanding of Mi’kmaq culture, governance, and rights
For the Mi’kmaq, it is the initial quantity of salmon in the pool that determines whether or not salmon will be removed and, if present, how many. Only a certain number of salmon will be harvested from a pool and once fished, the pool will not be fished again that season. Fishers move from pool to pool, carefully selecting their catch and moving on to a new pool if more salmon are required. There is no set removal rate. There is an understanding that not all salmon are to be removed from the pool, and only to remove what is needed. (Denny and Fanning 2016b, p. 10)
… language … create[s] a shared belief in and understanding of the world and our relationship to it: languages are about our—identity—who we are and how we understand and interact with each other and the world around us. (GNWT 2005, p. 2)
Need to create mechanisms valuing Mi’kmaq knowledge
Need for clarity of Mi’kmaq inherent and treaty rights
Conclusion
Relevant subject areas
Competing interests
Acknowledgements
References
Appendix A
Interview questions
Appendix B
Coding rationale sheet
Opportunities within current governance |
Consultation |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Spoke explicitly about Mi’kmaq consultation as an opportunity to improve Mi’kmaq participation, or the ability for Mi’kmaq principles and knowledge to inform the process • Emphasized the importance of Mi’kmaq consultation in order for MEK or principles to inform MPA processes • Mentioned Mi’kmaq TOR and (or) working group • Emphasized the importance of ongoing discussions and conversations with Mi’kmaq • Expressed frustration with the lack of Mi’kmaq consultation |
MEKS |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Mentioned MEKS as an opportunity to gather information/gather knowledge, a learning tool, or tool to facilitate mutual understanding |
Language |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • The importance of language in facilitating learning and understanding either Mi’kmaq or generally |
Mi’kmaq concepts/approaches |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Netukulimk as a tool in MPA governance and (or) MPA process to facilitate the ability for values, knowledge, and interests to inform MPAs • Two-Eyed Seeing approach to facilitate the ability for values, knowledge, and interests to inform MPAs • Any other reference to a Mi’kmaq approach, principle, or concept |
Alterative governance |
Co-governance |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Co-governance, co-management, community-based process with Mi’kmaq • That Mi’kmaq should be involved throughout the process including management and decision-making • Co-developed MPA process with Mi’kmaq |
Indigenous-led |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Mi’kmaq-/Indigenous-driven/led process • Mi’kmaq/Indigenous community-based/bottom-up approach • Indigenous protected and conserved areas |
Other |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Any suggested alternative approach to the current top-down process (e.g., Marine Spatial Planning, Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management, Marine Environmental Quality) |
Challenges within the current governance system |
Systemic barrier |
Crown governance structure |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Top-down governance structure issues • Department structural issues (e.g., siloing departments) |
MPA process inadequacies |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Explicit indication or comment related to inefficiencies or barriers with the process itself • Issues related to how MEKS informs the MPA process and what information is provided within the MEKS • Lack of communication between tables (e.g., negotiation tables, MPA advisory, and other working groups) • Inherent bureaucratic challenges (e.g., decision-making time, governmental language) • MPA process is fragmented • Inadequate consultation processes (Mi’kmaq-DFO) • Lack of formal mechanisms (any indicator or comment that pertains to having a formal process that impeded the ability for Mi’kmaq to fully participate within the process) (e.g., dispute resolution processes, formal process for MEK to inform MPAs alongside science) |
Legislation |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Legislation or legislation components that do not allow for or facilitate co-management, the creation of IPCAs, or do not align with Mi’kmaq worldview (e.g., land-coastal-marine interconnections) • Ministerial discretion • Mention of the inability to devolve power |
Indigenous knowledge valuation |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Explicit or inexplicit mention of knowledge undervaluation • Expressed frustration with knowledge undervaluation • The undervaluation of cultural values and (or) overvaluation of ecological values and biological indicators |
Power imbalances |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Catering to industry or prioritization of industry or stakeholder groups • “Loudest voices being heard” • Conflicts between conservation and industry • Power imbalances between government and Indigenous peoples |
Trust |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Trust between Mi’kmaq community, Mi’kmaq-DFO, Mi’kmaq-fishers, Mi’kmaq and science (Note: did not include participant comments related to mistrust between community-DFO or fisheries-DFO) |
Fisheries conflicts |
Fisheries access |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Fear of fisheries access loss (contributes to overall fisheries conflicts between Mi’kmaq and non-Mi’kmaq fishers) • MPA impeding fisheries access, which can undermine the process • Issues surrounding fairness and equity or equitable distribution of resource access |
Mi’kmaq rights |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Conflicts between non-Mi’kmaq fishers and Mi’kmaq fishers or rights-based fishery conflicts • Lack of respect for Mi’kmaq rights • The need to respect Mi’kmaq rights within the MPA process |
Clarity/understanding rights |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Lack of understanding of how fishing rights are exercised and is related to fisheries conflicts • Lack of clarity on how “moderate livelihood” is defined and how that contributes to the fisheries conflicts |
Lack of understanding |
Mi’kmaq culture/values/knowledge/governance |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • That illustrate a lack of understanding of Mi’kmaq culture, values, and knowledge (e.g., assuming Mi’kmaq will overharvest the stock) • That illustrate or imply a lack of understanding how Mi’kmaq harvest or conduct cultural practices or use the resources (e.g., assumption that when there is no Mi’kmaq community presence that Mi’kmaq do not use the area) • Direct statements that there is a lack of understanding |
Mi’kmaq governance structure |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • A misunderstanding of how Mi’kmaq fisheries decisions are made (e.g., not a “free for all” and there are rules that Mi’kmaq individuals abide by as part of their won governance systems and laws”) • Mi’kmaq governance structure |
Mi’kmaq rights |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Direct or indirect statements that illustrated a lack of understanding of rights (e.g., free, prior, and informed consent as veto power) • Perceived Mi’kmaq as having “special treatment” versus being seen as rightsholders • Perceived Mi’kmaq as stakeholders versus rightsholders |
Differences of worldviews |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Direct statements about worldview differences • Language used when speaking of resources from a utilitarian perspective • Difficulties with comparing or integrating western and Indigenous knowledge systems |
Mi’kmaq presence at advisory |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Lack of Mi’kmaq presence at the advisory table or an unawareness of Mi’kmaq representatives at the advisory table |
Capacity |
Funding/support |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Explicit reference to funding • Lack of capacity assumed to be funding |
Personnel |
Statements/comments were counted each time participants referred to the following elements: • Lack of personnel to be involved in the process (e.g., consultation process, gathering information, manage MPAs, govern MPAs) • Lack of technical expertise to fully participate |
Supplementary material
- Download
- 191.80 KB
- Download
- 42.39 KB
- Download
- 219.62 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Notes
Copyright
Data Availability Statement
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Plain Language Summary
Authors
Author Contributions
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item