Can small-scale commercial and subsistence fisheries co-exist? Lessons from an indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada

Abstract

Subsistence (or food) fisheries are under-studied, and the interaction between subsistence and commercial fisheries have not been studied systematically. Addressing this gap is the main contribution of the present paper, which focuses on how to deal with the challenge of overlapping commercial and subsistence fisheries. The study was conducted in Norway House Cree Nation, with qualitative data collection and questionnaire surveys. Commercial fishing in Norway House takes place during spring/summer and fall seasons, whereas subsistence fishing takes place throughout the year. Commercial fishing mostly occurs in the open waters of Lake Winnipeg; subsistence fishing in rivers adjacent to the reserve and in smaller lakes inland. How do fishers and the community deal with overlaps and potential conflicts between the two kinds of fisheries? The main mechanism is the separation of the two temporally and spatially. In the remaining overlap areas, conflict resolution relies on monitoring of net ownership and informal communication. The first mechanism is regulatory but really de facto co-management in the way it is implemented. The second is consistent with Cree cultural values of respect, reciprocity and tolerance.

The strategy of shifting cultivators in West Kalimantan in adapting to the market economy: empirical evidence behind gaps in interdisciplinary communication

“…Adaptation is apparent in terms of the alteration in farmer's choices of annual crop varieties, changes to planting periods, and amendments made to annual crop management. Attention to the level of farmer's education, experience, land holdings and ownership, access to market information, and extension services can help farmers carry out calculated adaptation to changes in their socio-economic surroundings (Abid et al 2015;Islam and Berkes 2016;Ndamani and Watanabe 2015;Olayemi and Nirmala 2016;Sima et al 2015).…”

Governance as a driver of change in the Canadian boreal zone1

“…For example, the Innu Nation of Labrador are entitled to shared financial and resource benefits from within their territory as per their agreement in principle, though their agreement does not specify a method for providing consent for land development (Samson 2016). Most comanagement agreements address a specific resource, such as the Cree of Northern Manitoba who have developed a comanagement method for fisheries permits (Islam and Berkes 2016) and the James Bay Cree of Northern Quebec who have an open forum to discuss activities on their settlement lands with the Province of Quebec through the Cree-Quebec Forestry Board (Mulrennan and Scott 2005). In Ontario, Pikangikum First Nation jointly planned the management of the Whitefeather Forest with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Zurba et al 2016;Islam and Berkes 2016).…”

Allocation of harvest between user groups in a fishery with habitat effect

“…Although administratively based allocation processes may require managers to consider economic values of the resource for each user group, they have the advantage of enabling managers to consider and maintain control over the wider interests of the community when determining allocations (Morgan, ). Allocation processes based on administrative mechanisms have been used to distribute harvest within commercial fishing fleets, as well as allocate between sectors, including commercial, recreational and Indigenous in order to maintain the social and cultural value of a fishery (Crowe, Longson, & Joll, ; Islam & Berkes, ; Lynham, ; Sutinen & Johnston, ). Administrative allocations have also been used to promote the economic development of local communities.…”