Spatial and Temporal Changes in Access Rights to Shellfish Resources in British Columbia

Abstract

Over the past decade, the shellfish and finfish aquaculture industry has expanded rapidly in coastal British Columbia (BC) Canada. Foreshore and nearshore shellfish and finfish aquaculture leaseholds are sited in close proximity or in direct competition with habitat for wild shellfish. As a result, some wild shellfish harvesters believe shellfish farms are significantly reducing access to beaches and estuarine areas for wild harvesting, or that salmon farms are contaminating wild shellfish stocks. In this article, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are used to analyze spatial and temporal trends in the growth of shellfish and finfish aquaculture tenures in BC, while interviews with stakeholders in coastal communities are used to explore user conflicts and the implications of changing access rights on the distribution of marine resources. Qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that shellfish aquaculture provides significant economic opportunities for coastal communities, but that such development may hold increased risk of spatial conflicts over marine habitat as the aquaculture industry continues to grow.

Keywords:

• aquaculture
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
• First Nations
• fisheries
• property rights
• shellfish

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research was provided by GEOIDE, the Canadian National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Community University Research Alliance (SSHRC-CURA) Coastal Communities Project. The authors thank Evelyn Pinkerton of Simon Fraser University and Terre Satterfield of the University of British Columbia for their support in early stages of this research, and for their fieldwork collaboration on two SSHRC-funded grants, “Representing Aboriginal Cultural Concerns in Risk-Based Policy Contexts” (PI, Satterfield) and “Modelling Cooperative Community Stewardship: An Alternative to Privatization” (PI, Pinkerton). The authors also thank the many participants in this study who contributed their time and wealth of knowledge about the shellfish industry.

Notes

1. The total costs of leasing fees significantly exceed total revenue of license fees collected in the wild fisheries. However, the jurisdiction of wild fisheries licensing falls within the mandate of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, while aquaculture leasing fees are paid to the Provincial government.

2. Although the majority of leases in BC are for clam and oyster farming, some farm leases also include permission to cultivate mussels, cockles, abalone, or scallops, but production of these other species is as yet still minimal relative to total volume of clam and oysters that are produced in BC.

3. The majority of salmon leases were initially developed by small owner-operators (MAFF, 2007b) but have largely been bought out; the salmon farming industry in BC has consolidated such that by 2004, the majority of tenures supporting the $13 billion dollar industry were owned by only three companies (Cox, 2004). Although Cox reports five companies in 2004, further consolidation through mergers and buyouts has resulted in two principal companies—by 2008—owning 96% of the BC salmon farming industry (MAFF, 2008).

4. Total foreshore as measured by Natural Resources Canada (2000), Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, GeoAccess Division.

5. Clams do not generally grow on rocky headlands (they require specific substrate or tidal conditions), thus rendering a large portion of this measured total coastline unsuitable for shellfish production.

6. To some degree, these figures were useful in determining whether local patterns for the five study sites were reflective of broader coast-wide trends, although data limitations make it difficult to draw broad conclusions from a quantitative analysis of the government-derived GIS datasets.

7. Extrapolated based on 2003 shellfish capabilities studies, and adjusted for water quality closures. These figures should be considered rough estimates, while interviews provided more detailed data for specific study sites.

8. In the GIS analysis, the total area of coastal foreshore occupied by shellfish aquaculture sites was small, although in interviews the displacement effects were reported to be more widespread than the areal extent of lease boundaries. In practice, displacement effects were not limited exclusively to areas occupied by leases, but generally excluded the entire beach where a tenure was located. As such, the effects were reported in some cases to be greater than the figures shown by the GIS data.

9. In this case, although not in all communities considered in this study, contaminants from other sources played a more significant role in altering shellfish harvesting practices than perceptions of contaminants in salmon farm effluents.

10. First Nations were given priority in selecting leasehold sites. Non–First Nations leases in First Nations territories were put through a referral process for review by First Nations bands. Therefore First Nations had some degree of control in how leases were allocated, but bands were not always satisfied with the outcome of the process, as final decisions to approve or reject lease applications were made by the Provincial government.

11. Cases include Homathco vs. Marine Harvest; Sierra Legal Defence Fund (now called Ecojustice) on behalf of MTTC and Gwawaenuk vs. Stolt Sea Farms, Heritage Salmon Ltd.