UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social capital and sustainability in a Newfoundland fishing community Silk, Victoria 2007

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_spring_silk_victoria.pdf [ 72.74MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0066240.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066240-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066240-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066240-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066240-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066240-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066240-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0066240-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0066240.ris

Full Text

Social Capital and Sustainability in a Newfoundland Fishing Community by Victoria E. Silk B.A., Memorial University, 1999 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Sociology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2007 © Victoria E. Silk, 2007 ABSTRACT The intent of this thesis is to conduct an empirical study of social capital in a single resource dependent fishing community, Petty Harbour, Newfoundland. The community under study, Petty Harbour, has a 335 year attachment to what was its primary fishery, Northern cod (Gadus morhua). This ended in 1992 when the Canadian government implemented an indefinite moratorium on Northern cod. Historically the community has exhibited high levels of activism aimed for the most part at protectionism of its primary economic mainstay, the fishery. Social capital by definition implies available resources embedded in social structures such as informal networks that can be accessed and mobilized by individuals or groups for either personal or communal gain (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000; Krishna, 2002; Onyx, 2005). High levels of social capital can lead to collective activism, which according to some, is the single most important contributing factor to sustainability because without activism, an outcome of social capital, there may be no hope for recovery and sustainability. My hypothesis is that the extent to which one is socially connected through network ties to close friends and/or family (structural social capital) and the level of trust in neighbors (cognitive social capital) will positively correlate with their involvement with activism. Leadership and sense of ownership are introduced as additional independent variables to further explore explanations for the community's level of collective activism and stewardship of the resource. Treating activism as a dependent variable, I am going to examine social capital indicators, suggesting network ties (weak, strong) as independent variables that can partially explain the historically high level of activism. I am also going to propose that the independent variables leadership and sense of ownership will also positively correlate with activism. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT^ ii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES^ vii ABBREVIATIONS viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS^ ix DEDICATION^ CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION^ 1 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW^ 7 SOCIAL CAPITAL^ 7 DEFINING SOCIAL CAPITAL^ 7 THEORIZING SOCIAL CAPITAL: NETWORKS^ 10 COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL^ 13 MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL 15 LINKING SOCIAL CAPITAL TO SOCIAL ACTION: THE STRUCTURE AND AGENCY DEBATE^ 16 SOCIAL INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABILITY^ 17 COMMON PROPERTY THEORY^ 20 LINKING THE CONCEPTS 25 THE RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS^ 26 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 30 INTRODUCTION^ 30 MEETING THE COMMUNITY^ 30 SPECIFIC PROCEDURES 32 Research Sample^ 32 Ethical Review 32 Survey Instruments^ 33 Data Collection And Handling ^ 33 INTRODUCING THE HYPOTHESES 35 DEFINING THE CONCEPTS^ 36 Measuring Social Capital 36 Social Capital Networks^ 37 iii Social Capital: Trust^ 39 Activism^ 41 Leadership: The Mobilization Catalyst?^ 43 A New Indicator Of Sustainability: Sense Of Ownership^ 44 CONCLUSION^ 46 CHAPTER FOUR: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY^ 47 INTRODUCTION^ 47 PETTY HARBOUR 47 THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL FISHERIES^ 55 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DESTROYED FISHERIES ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES^ 62 CHAPTER FIVE: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS^ 68 ACTIVISM — THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE^ 69 STRUCTURAL SOCIAL CAPITAL: NETWORKS 73 COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL: TRUST^ 76 LEADERSHIP^ 78 SENSE OF OWNERSHIP^ 80 CONCLUSION^ 83 CHAPTER 6 TESTING THE HYPOTHESES: LOCATING EXPLANATIONS FOR ACTIVISM .84 THE HYPOTHESES^ 87 EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS — INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW^ 89 SOCIAL CAPITAL NETWORKS^ 89 COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL - TRUST^ 91 LEADERSHIP^ 91 SENSE OF OWNERSHIP^ 92 BIVARIATE RESULTS 93 MULTIPLE REGRESSION RESULTS^ 95 DISCUSSION^ 96 CONCLUSION 98 CHAPTER SEVEN: FINAL DISCUSSION^ 100 INTRODUCTION^ 100 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS^ 100 The Indicators Dilemma 102 LOOKING BEYOND PETTY HARBOUR: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF FISHING COMMUNITIES 104 iv FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS^ 112 CONCLUSION'̂ 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY 120 APPENDICES^ 129 APPENDIX 1: THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE^ 129 APPENDIX 2: INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH PROJECT AND INFORMED CONSENT^ 148 APPENDIX 3: CONSENT^ 150 APPENDIX 4: ORAL QUESTIONNAIRE^ 151 APPENDIX 5: ETHICS CERTIFICATE 154 V LIST OF TABLES Table 4:1 Species Licence Held ^ 51 Table 5:1 Comparing Attitudes Towards Activism To Involvement with Activism ^ 73 Table 5:2 Membership in Community Organizations^ 76 Table 5:3 Do fishers help out in a time of crisis? 79 Table 5:4 Defining Leadership in Petty Harbour^ 81 Table 5:5 Control over the fishery^ 83 Table 6:1 Intercorrelations Amongst Independent and Dependent Variables^ 96 Table 6:2 Multiple Regression Model Explaining Activism Using Standardized Regression Coefficients^ 97 Table 7:1 Level of Agreement with 'Sense of Ownership' Indicators^ 102 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2:1 Social Indicators of Sustainability and Common Property Theory^ 21 Figure 2:2 Theoretical Diagram: Social capital, structural and cognitive^ 28 Figure 4:1 Petty Harbour, January, 2006^ 48 Figure 6:1 Factors explaining activism 86 Figure 6:2 Regression Results: Factors Explaining Activism^ 95 vii ABBREVIATIONS CAFSAC^Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee CPT^Common Property Theory DFO^Department of Fisheries and Oceans EEZ^Exclusive Economic Zone GPS^Global Position System ITQ^Individual Transferable Quotas LK Local Knowledge LME^Large Marine Ecosystems MPA^Marine Protected Area NIFA^Newfoundland Inshore Fisher's Association NL Newfoundland TAC^Total allowable catch TEK^Traditional Ecological Knowledge TURFS^Territorial use rights in fisheries ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research conducted for this thesis would not have been possible without the generous support of The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC). The grant that was awarded for this thesis allowed me to conduct three months of field research in Newfoundland. I also would like to acknowledge the ongoing patience of my thesis advisor, Dr. David Tindall, who supported my work over a three year period, well beyond the normal call of duty for a Master's degree. I acknowledge also the time and thoughtful input of my defense committee whose insightful critique of my thesis provided direction for a finer end product. I have a special thanks to the many fishers of Petty Harbour who so willing and generously gave of their time for interviews and meetings, providing the wealth of information that is the basis of this thesis. ix DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my family, my partner Hamid, and Dr. Barbara Neis, all of whom provided support both prior to the commencement of my research and throughout the three years that it took for completion of the degree. x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Sustainability in single resource dependent communities is a pressing issue that commands attention from academics throughout the world. Competing explanations and solutions to the crisis of resource depletion are continually being explored and presented, yet ongoing degradation of natural resources continues. Common property theory has been explored extensively in an effort to locate what underlies natural resource degradation. The study of social indicators of sustainability is another area devoted to trying to locate explanations and solutions. Social indicators of sustainability have focused to a large extent on objective economic measures such as income, real estate values, tourism, and education levels. One of the concerns with this approach is that it neglects to factor in preservation or regeneration of the environment, as well as substantive issues such as sense of well-being, or attachment to community (den Otter and Beckley, 2002; Nadeau et al, 1999). A more recent area of study being examined with respect to sustainable development is social capital as studies have shown that it provides a social infrastructure that can lead to activism (Dale and Onyx, 2005). Social capital gained its popularity predominately through the study of formal networks and civic engagement (Putnam et al, 1993; Baron et al, 2000; Edwards et al, 2001; Grootaert at al, 2004). By definition it implies available resources that are embedded in social structures such as formal and informal networks that can be accessed by individuals or groups for gain (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000; Krishna, 2002; Onyx, 2005). Another key indicator of social capital is trust (Onyx and Dale, 2005; Tilly, 2005). There is a growing recognition of the role that trust and social capital can play in community sustainability and for this reason it is now finding credibility with scholars from a wide range of disciplines (Krishna, 2002; Grootaert et al, 2004; Dale and Onyx). Understanding how social capital is mobilized into a working asset for communities can be a useful tool for policy planners, community organizers, and others concerned with development and sustainability. While its varied applications have raised concerns about clarity of definition, it has garnered much attention and is perceived to be a useful concept in the social sciences. As well, it has a strong profile in current debates on activism and sustainability (Woolcock, 1998; Baron et al, 2000; Newton, 2001; Krishna, 2002; Onyx and Dale, 2005). Addressing criticisms of its binary nature and its lack of precision in definition, Michael Woolcock (1998) argues that social capital should be 1 viewed in terms of a balance between benefits and disadvantages. It is recognized that, as with many new concepts, rigorous study over time will lead to a tightening up of definition (Baron et al, 2000). In this thesis I examine social capital in conjunction with indicators of sustainability, and common property theory (CPT). It has been argued that an interdisciplinary approach to resource management that examines the interactions between social and natural systems is necessary, particularly in light of the failure of science to mitigate the problem of resource depletion (Hollings et al, 2000; Dale, 2005; Onyx, 2005). Resource management is about sustainability, and while conceptually sustainability does not lend itself to precision, it has been defined by The Canadian Consortium for Sustainable Development Research (1998) as the reconciliation of three imperatives: the social justice which refers to the development of democratic systems of governance, the ecological, living within the global capacity and maintaining biodiversity, and the economic imperative that would ensure the basic needs of people are met globally (Onyx, 2005: 2). It is argued that social capital is essential to sustainable development because reconciliation of these three imperatives will only occur through collective activism which is an outcome of social capital (Onyx, 2005). The intent of my research is to conduct an empirical study of social capital in a single resource dependent community, Petty Harbour, Newfoundland (NL). The community of approximately 915 people has for the past three hundred years and thirty-five years depended exclusively on a local land based, low impact fishery, and has now had its fish resource severely depleted by industrial interceptor fisheries. I use the term interceptor fishery to describe fisheries that intercept and catch stocks that have historically migrated to shorelines, supporting coastal fishing communites engaged in low-impact, locally based fisheries. Historically Petty Harbour exhibited a high level of community activism, usually in response to fisheries crises that resulted from external pressures on the resource. One example of this was the prolonged battle by the community in the early 1960s to have its gear protected area restored, legislation that dated back to the 1800s when NL was still under British Rule. This legislation was struck from the law in 1961 with no community consultation. A lengthy three year battle ensued between Petty Harbour and the Federal government and in 1964, Petty Harbour's protective legislation was reinstated. Another aspect of activism common to single resource dependent communities is the creation and enforcement of governance schemes designed to 2 allocate and protect common property resources on a local level. Communities involved in resource extraction have often relied on complex, locally recognized, property rights systems and rules to monitor extraction and participation (Berkes, 1987; Copes, 1998; Hollings et al, 2000). There are many possible explanations for the sustained activism in the community. Perhaps strong charasmatic leadership that was passed along intergenerationally over the decades can explain this. Another possible explanation is that perhaps there were specific families within the community that were more inclined than others to be socially and politically active, carrying the burden of it and motivating others to become involved. While there is no empirical data to inform these speculations, they are noteworthy not only as alternative explanations but also because they both link, in part, to theoretical explanations of social capital. The objective with this thesis is to determine whether social capital has been an important factor in explaining Petty Harbour's sustained activism. It has been established that informal networks (ties to friendship and family) are primary factors that motivate people to participate in activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). Studies on network ties have resulted in varying and contradictory results with respect to whether strong ties or weak ties can explain certain behaviours, attitudes, and decisions to participate in activism. There is a debate in the social capital literature on whether weak ties or strong ties play a more critical role. While there is an argument that weak ties can be more beneficial at times, much of the research on activism concludes that strong ties are a powerful influence on peoples' decisions to participate in demonstrations and other forms of activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Passy, 2003; Dale and Onyx, 2005). In studies that examine why it is that some communities organize and others don't, it has been established that the presence of trust, and in particular, trust in leadership, influences individual decisions (Granovetter, 1973; Varghese and Ostrom, 2001; Krishna, 2002). Studies of rural resource dependent communities show that trust within networks often links to collective activism which in turn results in natural resource protection (Varghese and Ostrom, 2001; Krishna, 2002; Dale, 2005). Network solidarity that evolves through strong ties to close friends and family, and can facilitate formation of trust in leaders (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). Collective activism is an obvious 3 manifestation of individual activity, so by understanding the context in which individuals are most likely to become politically and socially active in their communities, one can better understand how sustainable practices can be promoted. It is for these reasons that I have chosen to explore the relationship between social capital (structural and cognitive), leadership, and sense of ownership in an effort to explain the high level of activism in Petty Harbour. What one realizes is that linking these concepts, each of which are conceptually challenging on their own, creates a complex web where teasing out precise meaning can be very difficult. My study is an effort to tease out some of the linkages and establish whether there are measurable relationships that can withstand the scrutiny of empirical analysis. I conducted an empirical inquiry into the role that social capital may have played with respect to the level of activism, particularly with respect to protectionism of the community's fish resources. Using a mail out survey questionnaire I measure individual levels of social capital (defined as networks ties and trust), and the following indicators of sustainability: leadership, sense of ownership, and activism. As a complement to this research I conducted oral interviews with several fishers. As part of this research I attempt to bring clearer definition to two social indicators of sustainabiilty, activism and leadership, and to develop a third indicator, sense of ownership. Chapter two provides a literature review of social capital, social indicators of sustainability, and common property theory. There are several themes in the literature on sustainable communities that include, but are not limited to, discussions about social capital (Grootaert et al, 2004; Dale and Onyx, 2005), social indicators of sustainability (Beckley et al, 2002) and common property theory (McCay and Acheson, 1987; Berkes, 1987; Marchak, 1988; O'Connor and Tindall, 1990; Diegues, 1998; Ostrom, 2001), Arguably, these are overlapping and interconnecting issues that need to be understood and dealt with in a holistic way if economic revitalization of single resource dependent communities and the ecosystems they rely on is to take place. The conclusion of chapter two will state the research question and hypothesis. The research question I ask in this thesis is: what social phenomena can explain the high level of activism of commercial fishers with respect to protectionism over fish resources in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland? My hypothesis is that the level of individual activism 4 will have a positive correlation with the extent of one's social ties to people in various community positions (structural social capital - networks), and with the perception that neighbors help out in a crisis (cognitive social capital — trust). I suggest that the presence of social capital is necessary but not sufficient to explain individual activism. I introduce leadership and sense of ownership as intervening variables to further explore explanations for the activism that has led to stewardship of fish resource on a local level. Treating activism as a dependent variable I use both bivariate and multiple regression analysis to examine the correlation between my variables leadership, social capital (networks and trust), and sense of ownership. I expect the results of my study will show a positive correlation between social capital and activism, and that leadership and sense of ownership will positively correlate with these variables, thus explaining, at least in part, the existence of the community's history of strong management practices over its fishing commons. The results of my study do in fact show that leadership (perception of community leadership prior to the 1992 moratorium), network social capital (specifically ties to relatives in diverse community positions, but also membership in fisher's organizations), cognitive social capital (trust in one's neighbor to help out in a crisis) are all factors that help to explain activism in the community. Chapter three provides a detailed description of the methodology employed in data collection. The introductory part of this chapter provides ethnographic details of my background with the community and how I re-introduced my self to a community after a 12 year absence through attending meetings, circulating information handouts, and various personal encounters. This chapter describes my population of interest, how I contacted participants, the ethical review involved in my research, my research sample, data collection, and the oral interviews. This section also provides the definition of my variables, how they are operationalized, and the theoretical justifications to support my decisions. In chapter four I provide the historical background to my study. In order to understand the present state of the fishery in Petty Harbour, I review the historical contexts which gave rise to the modern industrial fishery, the economic rationale that directed this, and how modernization of the industry has been instrumental in determining the face of today's fishery. The section on fisheries modernization discusses how modernization processes have impacted marine fisheries and also the role of science in fisheries 5 management. This discussion will help to situate Petty Harbour with respects to current fisheries issues. I provide an overview of the socio-economic impacts of destroyed fisheries on coastal fishing communities with historical attachment (Doeringer and Terkla, 1995; Ruohomaki, 1999). In chapter five I present the descriptive data that I collected during my three months of field research. I discuss the variables of the thesis, and the rationale for creating the specific indicators that I developed in order to create measures of the variables. This section also includes some descriptive tables that are relevant to the thesis and excerpts from my oral interviews both of which provide general contextual background to the community under study. Taking direction from the literature on social capital, I focus on the linkages between activism, and the influence that indicators such as structural social capital (networks), cognitive social capital, leadership, and sense of ownership might play in individuals' decisions to partake in activism. In chapter six I discuss the four hypotheses of this thesis and how I tested them in order to develop possible explanations for the activism in Petty Harbour. I present a theoretical model of different factors that explain activism, these representing my four hypotheses. I provide tables that show my bivariate results and a theoretical model with the multiple regression results. In this section I discuss the results of my bivariate and multiple regression analyses of the variables social capital networks, social capital cognitive (trust), leadership and activism. This section will reflect back on the research question, the hypotheses, then lay out the results, linking them to what the literature has to say, and how they shape up with respect to my expectations. Chapter seven is the discussion and conclusion. I provide a brief discussion of my results and reflect on whether they are supported by the literature on social capital. This chapter will examine which elements of my research project were successful, what expectations were met, and also those which were not met. I then examine the broader implications of my research for sustainability of coastal fishing communities. The final section of this chapter examines future directions and potential solutions to the issues facing resource dependent communities. I use this chapter as an opportunity to explore possibilities for further research such as conducting comparative studies on a community level that will measure and compare indicators of social capital. 6 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW Social capital There are several themes in the literature on sustainable communities that include, but are not limited to, discussions about social capital (Dale and Onyx, 2005), social indicators of sustainability (Beckley et al, 2002), and common property theory (McCay and Acheson, 1987; Berkes, 1987; Marchak, 1988; O'Connor and Tindall, 1990; Diegues, 1998; Ostrom, 2001). These are overlapping and interconnecting issues that I argue need to be understood and dealt with in a holistic way if regeneration of single resource dependent communities and the ecosystems they rely on is to take place. Policy advisors throughout the world are examining how social capital can aid in economic development, and likewise how locally relevant social indicators of sustainability can be developed. Common property theory has been influential with state policy makers throughout the world and used as a rational to promote privatization management schemes with the hope of preventing degradation of natural resources. However, the underlying assumptions of it have been extensively critiqued and it is noted that privatization models are flawed and that natural resources continue to remain in a state of crisis. It is my contention that an investigation of the relationship between social capital and sustainable development will provide valuable insights to the debate on sustainability of both natural and human systems. This section of my thesis provides a literature review of social capital, social indicators of sustainability, and common property theory. Defining social capital In recent years social capital has garnered much attention and taken a central position in academic discussions concerned with development. While the concept is framed up differently by many scholars, there is general consensus that social capital implies available resources embedded in social structures that through human agency are mobilized for individual or collective benefit or improvement (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000; Krishna, 2002; Grootaert et al, 2004; Onyx, 2005). These embedded resources are viewed as indicators of social capital and are defined as network ties, reciprocity through obligations, exchange, and trust (Putnam, 1998; Schuller et all, 2000; Baron et al, 2000; Foley et al, 2001). These features, networks, norms, and trust, form a triad that 7 provides the conceptual framework upon which discussions of social capital is built (Schuller et al, 2000). Of these three features, the function that networks, both formal and informal, play with respect to building social capital appears to dominate most studies on social capital. Current thinking on the importance of social capital is the role that it plays in collective activism (Passy, 2003; Krishna, 2002; Dale, 2005). It is recognized that social ties are important for social action but the role of networks has yet to be clearly theorized (Passy, 2003). Social capital theory states that ties to networks or relationships will ultimately allow individuals and/or communities to secure benefits that could be social, political, or economic in value, and that trust, leadership, and activism are all components of this (Lin, 2001; Onyx, 2005). It has also been noted that by virtue of definition, social capital will be a given as a standing resource inherent in many small rural communities (Krishna, 2002; Dale, 2005). A review of the literature reveals that there are three key figures that can be credited with having made substantial contributions to the establishment of social capital as a viable concept in the social sciences: Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert Putnam (Schuller et al, 2000; Grootaert et al, 2004). Their individual approaches to social capital vary substantially; however, collectively they have been influential in placing the concept into a central position (Schuller et al, 2000). Working from a Marxist framework Bourdieu (1986) developed the concept of social capital in conjunction with a study that examined economic and cultural capital. He identified social capital as an aggregate of potential resources that stemmed from one's personal network connections, something that allowed an individual to profit in a variety of ways such as materially, or perhaps in terms of prestige (Bourdieu, 1986). It is in his work also that one can see an emphasis on the idea that networks, and as extension of this, social capital, is not a given, rather the result of an intentional investment by the individual with the idea that something beneficial will evolve (Bourdieu, 1986: 250). This is noteworthy in that many of the studies on social capital place emphasis on the individual and how there is a cost benefit analysis approach to behaviours. However, there are recent studies that examine the idea of inherent social capital and that which emerges out of built in community norms, where individuals tend to respond to a crisis without obvious personal gain. It has been argued that Bourdieu's conceptualization of social capital was not well developed but in spite of this criticism, a working definition of social capital was introduced. It is defined as the existence of, or the potential for, resources that can 8 facilitate networking of institutional relationships and access by individuals to collectively owned capital (Schuller et al, 2000). It is in the work of James Coleman (1988) that one can see the conceptual framework evolve upon which social capital has been built (Schuller et al, 2000). Coleman's definition derives its theoretical basis from two different intellectual streams of thought: economics and sociology (Coleman, 1988: 95). Using rational action as a starting point, he introduces the idea of social structure into the rational action paradigm, arguing that the theory of individual ration action is insufficient to explain social capital. He envisioned the concept of social capital as a way to understand and explain the relationship between different levels of education and social inequality, and conducted a study of how resources that exist in family and community structures could help facilitate the cognitive and social development of a person, particularly of youth (Coleman, 1988). His theorizing differed from Bourdieu's in that Bourdieu saw social capital as something that helped people maintain pre-existing positions of privilege whereas Coleman saw it as something that could be accessed by a wider range of people, whether in positions of societal privilege or not (Field, 2003: 28). He also looked at how reciprocity and trust evolved out of specific social institutions, his main focus being family, kinship, and religious networks. Robert Putnam (1993), who may well be the most widely cited author to date on social capital, argued that higher levels of social capital allow people to tackle collective activism problems more effectively. In a study of civic engagement in Italy, Putnam et al (1993) defined social capital as networks, and the norms or reciprocity and trust, arguing that these are a pre-condition for civic engagement. When social capital is present, as defined by strong embedded networks and relationships of trust and reciprocity, he argues it will enhance economic development and good governance (Putnam et al, 1993; Putnam, 2000). Putnam et al (1993) note that being a virtuous individual does not equate with social capital; one must be engaged with others through informal or formal networks in order for the social capital to be meaningful. Putnam (2000) conducted a study in America that tracked individual engagement with political and civic activities, the level of one's informal social ties, and levels of individual trust. According to his data, all of these were on the decrease, thus denoting a decline in social capital in America. The currency of social capital that crosses a range of disciplines, finding credibility with 9 policy makers globally, can be attributed to a variety of factors. By definition, it implies an asset both for individuals and for groups or communities that can help to reduce opportunistic, self-serving behaviours (Grootaert et al, 2004; Dale and Onyx, 2005). Studies that measure social capital tend to focus on how individual attributes lead to collective benefits, for instance collective activism. This has made it a useful tool for policy makers in the field of development. Earlier studies on social capital identified that it tends to be an historical asset with its roots in culture and community (Putnam et al, 1993); however, this idea has been challenged. A study of social capital in India shows that it was built up in communities in a relatively short time frame (two decades) through increased education (Krishna, 2002), a point of interest when one reflects back on the much earlier work of James Coleman (1988). Studies that can add to the knowledge of how social capital can be created will be meaningful to policy planners, community organizers, and those involved in governance. There is a growing interest in the implications of social capital for sustainability both of human and natural ecosystems. Theorizing social Capital: Networks The proliferation of theoretical approaches to social capital has led it to be viewed as a multi-dimensional concept that requires ongoing clarification (Foley et al, 2001; Grootaert et al, 2004; Dale and Onyx, 2005). Typically there are two dominant ways of conceptualizing social capital. One is as resources that serve the interests of individuals by virtue of their personal connections with others, (Portes, 1998; Lin, 2001; Passy, 2003; Onyx, 2005). The other perspective is the idea of how different features of social capital such as networks, norms, and trust can serve society through promotion of activities such as civic engagement (Putnam et al, 1993; Grootaert et al, 2004). While the role of trust as an indicator of social capital is recognized, for some, it is considered by some to be elusive enough as a concept that its validity is questioned; social networks on the other hand are universally accepted to be a main constituent of social capital (Diani, 2001). Recent developments in studies on social capital look at how it works to serve the interests of collectives in community development and sustainability (Krishna, 2002; Dale, 2005). It is the aspect of social capital that leads to collective activism that is of relevant to my thesis. There is agreement amongst some academics that any theory of social capital must capture the links and interactions between structure and action (Klandermans and 1 0 Oegema, 1987; Lin et al, 2001). This is in reference to individuals' social connections, their embeddedness in social structures such as informal networks, and their ability to access or mobilize resources for some type of gain, either personal or collective. It is widely accepted that social ties are important with respect to collective action and there is an extensive body on network theory that attempts to clarify why (Passy, 2003). It has also been established that social ties are important for social action and understanding the mechanisms of social networks will lead to a better understanding of what motivates people to participate in activism (Passy, 2003). In some cases, the density/intensity of network ties is assumed to correlate with individual social capital although this does not necessarily hold up to scrutiny. Mark Granovetters' (1973) conclusions are that weak ties could be more productive for those in pursuit of work; however others have noted that intensity of participation in higher risk forms of activism often relies on the presence of strong ties (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Foley et al, 2001). Where there is consensus is that having access to networks does not equate with having a working asset: social capital must be both present and accessible (Foley et al, 2001; Krishna, 2002; Passy, 2003). While terminology describing how social capital is mobilized varies, there are several common threads running through the literature. Typically, the mobilization of social capital focuses on the link between network ties and activism, and is presented in models that suggest stages and a chronological ordering of events (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Lin, 2001; Passy, 2003; Dale, 2005). In a study on the Dutch peace movement that predates the proliferation of work on social capital, Klandermans and Oegema (1987) examine how formal and informal networks of friends can influence individual activism. They state that irrespective of a movement's mobilization potential, without access to recruitment networks, mobilization on a formidable scale is unlikely to occur (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987: 520). They see mobilization and participation as four distinctly separate stages that occur in a chronological order, suggesting that each stage is deserving of its own specific theoretical basis. They note that mobilization, motivation, and recruitment are affected by close tie networks, and are able to demonstrate that several factors influence one's choice to participate in activism. The first point they make is that one's decision to become involved in individual activism will be affected by their perception of how effective the action will be, and that informal networks friendship and family, and ideological and social incentives are primary motives 11 for people to participate (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). They then examine the four facets of mobilization: the formation of mobilization potentials, formation and activation of recruitment networks, arousal of motivation to participate and removal of barriers to participation. They point out that links to informal networks appear to be a necessary condition for participation in the demonstration they studied. In developing a network theory of social capital, Nan Lin (2001) focuses on the idea it is comprised of three components: available resources that are embedded in social structures, accessibility to these resources by individuals through their social positions and ties, and the ability to mobilize for purposive action, generally self benefiting. In a study designed to report on a specific methodology for measuring social capital, that of the position generator, he argues that measuring social capital needs to examine both its presence (structure) and then how it is mobilized. The position generator is conceptually similar to 'linking' social capital which refers to people's ties to those in positions of authority, building on the idea of bridging social capital. Conceptually, bridging social capital captures the idea of horizontal (non hierarchical) linkages whereas linking social capital encompasses the idea of vertical (hierarchical) social connections (Michael Woolcock, 1999; Grootaert et al, 2004). The position generator methodology evolved as an alternative explanation to the name generator theory that assumes social capital can be measured by strength or numbers of social ties to individuals. The position generator focuses on personal contacts within hierarchies, ones which tend to garner collective respect or recognition, and how these can be used to advance ones interests (Lin, 2001: 17). Lin (2001) argues that by using position generator one can measures returns from accessed social resources, thus strengthening the argument for its use as an alternative to the name generator (Lin et al, 2001: 64). Florence Passy (2003) examines the ways in which social networks affect individual participation in collective action, arguing that there are three different functions of social networks and that they all play a role at different stages of the individual's move towards participation (socializing, structural connection and decision-making function). She suggests that studies on networks lack theoretical accuracy and in addressing this problem she submits that theorizing social networks can provide structuralist and rationalist explanations of individual participation in collective action (Passy, 2003: 23). Her evidence for this is that the structuralist and the rational action (human agency) positions are relevant at different stages of activism. Structuralist theory is influential in 12 the initial stage of participation that sees individuals influenced by the social networks they are tied to. The second stage involves the rational actor (human agency) perspective and explains the individual decision-making process that involves elements such as the cost and benefits analysis and facilitates the decision making process of whether to join and participate (Passy, 2003: 24). While social capital is not the specific concept under study, her use of different theories to bridge structure and agency provides clarity on the mechanisms that lead to collective activism. Passy (2003) argues that understanding how the intersection of these two theories combine to explain participation can help bridge the gap between them. The bridging of structure and agency requires the presence of trust, this based on the fact that trust as an element of social structure must be factored into any analysis of social relationships and that the role of trust in social capital has been established (Wuthnow, 2004: 152). Cognitive Social Capital In this section I review the role that trust plays in social capital. It has been pointed out that conceptually, trust is elusive, and that at this time there is not yet a solid theoretical framework for explaining or understanding trust as an element of social structure (Wuthnow, 2004). In spite of the fact that trust is conceptually abstract, it has been identified and widely accepted as an indicator of social capital (Putnam, et al 1993; Woolcock, 1999; Foley et al, 2001; Newton, 2001; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Wuthnow, 2004; Grootaert et al, 2004). Trust and reciprocity are viewed as critical components for building relationships, and it has been argued that any effort to explain or understand human relationships needs to include a detailed analysis of trust and the role it plays (Schuller et al, 2000; Newton, 2001; Wuthnow, 2004). Trust facilitates the ability to work towards commons goals which means that it can be viewed as foundational to the building of relationships that ultimately can lead to social cohesion in networks (Granovetter, 1973; Wuthnow, 2004; Dale, 2005). Recent research on sustainable development in rural communities, places trust in a central position upon which an infrastructure for creating social capital can be built (Dale, 2005). According to Ann Dale (2005), cooperation and reciprocity play a critical role in the formation and mobilization of social capital and both of these rely on a foundation of trust. This is of interest to my work as it has been noted that in small rural communities trust is more likely to emerge in informal networks ((Jackman and Miller, 1998; 13 Wuthnow, 2004). My first hand experience of informal networking and reciprocity in Petty Harbour confirms this perspective. In a discussion about why it is that some communities organize while others do not, Mark Granovetter (1973) points out that along with network ties, trust and leadership are important. He suggests that ties and network solidarity are important to formation of trust in leaders, the reason being that lack of solidarity can lead to fragmentation, which in turn inhibits trust. It has been established that trust, and as an extension of this, trust networks, can lead to cooperative behaviours, particularly in rural communities (Ostrom, 2001; Krishna 2002; Tilly, 2005; Onyx, 2005). The importance of this is how trust ultimately links to collective activism (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Ostrom, 2001; Dale, 2005). Charles Tilly (2005) in differentiating between networks with and without trust, states that trust networks are comprised of more intimate relationships and stronger ties (Tilly, 2005: 44). He describes trust networks one of the ways that people collectively manage to produce collective benefits (Tilly, 2005: 38). When people share common goals such as trust, autonomy to make rules, similar interests, and a common understanding of the gains to be achieved, there will be a stronger impetus to organize and establish fair and encompassing rules (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001: 763). Elinor Ostrom (2001) states that when resource users lack trust and communication both with each other and the political institutions in which they are embedded, Hardin's tragedy of the commons theory is more likely to be empirically supported. However, if they can bargain face to face, have trust, and have control and autonomy over rule making, they are more likely to organize. Foley et al (2001) present an argument that there may be little value in using trust and reciprocity as indicators of social capital due to the fact that national social surveys of generalized trust do not reveal much about what occurs in small, localized social groups. The premise for this line of reasoning is that national surveys are unable to capture the qualitative data required on localized social groups, and that understanding or knowing context is critically important (Foley et al, 2001: 168). In national surveys it is virtually impossible to know the context, therefore the credibility of using trust as an indicator can be questioned (Foley et al, 2001). This problem has been recognized by others but is not perceived as insurmountable. Grootaert et al (2004) solve this problem by pointing out that social capital surveys whether regional or local should have both generalized indicators (broader based) and then local ones that are contextually relevant to the 14 population being surveyed. This reinforces the importance of developing locally relevant indicators when measuring social capital. Measuring social capital At this time there are several competing explanations for the diversity of results in studies on social capital, and what constitutes appropriate measurement of social capital appears to be a topic of debate (Lin et al, 2001; Krishna, 2002; Passy, 2003). The divergences which have emerged between scholars who study social capital have led to a situation of conflicting theoretical ideas and measurement methodologies (Lin, 2001: 8). Some scholars approach social capital from an indicators perspective and in this case activism is treated as an indicator, along with networks and trust, rather than an outcome of social capital (Grootaert et al, 2004). It is difficult to determine if the differences result from a lack of clarity of definition, or whether the flexibility of definition is a sign of the latitude that occurs when a new concept is being framed up by a broad academic community for a wide range of applications. The key point that can be taken is that it has been well established through many studies that activism and social capital are inextricably linked (Ludell, 2001; Krishna, 2002; Onyx, 2005) It is suggested that one of the problems in measuring social capital stems from a theoretical analysis that erroneously conflates norms with networks, and also the tendency to use only networks as a measure (Krishna, 2002: 64). Anirudh Krishna (2002) argues that a separation of the structural from the cognitive in the analysis of social capital will more likely produce uniform results. His reasoning for this is that the structure of a network cannot reveal much about the human relationships within the network and group solidarity cannot be understood in terms of norms alone (Krishna, 2002: 64). Another explanation is that initially studies on social capital across cultures and nations, used involvement with formal networks as the predominate measurement of the concept (Krishna, 2002). The problem with focusing only on membership in formal associations is that the importance of informal networks does not get adequately addressed. In a study that examines social capital in 69 villages in India, Krishna (2002) found that only one in fifteen residents belonged to a formal association yet there were strong informal networks that allowed people to come together in collective action when the need arose, and then disperse once a problem was resolved (Krishna, 2002: 4). What this suggests is that when designing accurate measures for the operationalization 15 of social capital, cultural variation should be a consideration. Linking social capital to social action: the Structure and Agency debate Measures of network attributes cannot be used alone as indicators of social capital; for social capital to be a viable resource, the ability to generate beneficial collective or individual outcomes needs to be measured also (Foley et al, 2001; Krishna, 2002; Grootaert et al, 2004). In the case of Krishna's study of rural communities in India, he discovers that new agency that can be found in the younger generation of well-educated males that turn their energies towards lobbying for economic development projects for their communities (Krishna, 2002). It is through this new leadership or agency that social capital converts from a standing resource to a working resource. This study concurs with others that the presence of social capital does not necessarily translate into positive action; a catalyst is required. Of particular relevance to my work is the relationship of social capital to activism and the implications of this for community sustainable development. The work of Anne Dale and Jenny Onyx (2005) outlines a theoretical framework that provides a tentative guideline for linking what Onyx (2005) describes as two highly contested and elusive concepts: social capital and sustainable development. The motivation for their work stems from a concern that failure to implement what they refer to as the 'social imperative' of sustainable development has left single resource dependent communities at risk in this global economy (Dale, 2005). According to Dale (2005), there is evidence that high levels of social capital will ultimately be a prerequisite for reconciliation of the three imperatives of sustainable development (social, ecological, economic). The reasoning that supports this statement is that the changes required to achieve sustainable development will require collective mobilization of people throughout the world (Dale, 2005: 19). There are many documented instances of collective activism providing protection to common pool resources, with favourable end results. Dale (2005) identifies the elements or indicators of social capital that contribute to sustainable community development: trust, collective norms, cooperation, knowledge diffusion, and a shared vision of future goals. Using a stages model, she links sustainable development to networks, to show what builds social capital, and likewise what destroys it (Dale, 2005: 24). This highlights 16 the fact that the literature on social indicators of sustainability has an important contribution to make with respect to the evolving dialogue and growing body of research on social capital. Social Indicators of Sustainability In order to give better definition to the relationship between social capital and sustainability, a review of the literature both on sustainable development and the social indicators of sustainability is required. In the wake of the 1992 World Summit, sustainable development gained both definition as a concept and a solid foothold in the global world of environmentalism (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998). The release of the Brundtland Report (1997) that examined how modern development is linked to environmental degradation and expanding poverty led to a new public discourse on sustainability (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998). One of the built in assumptions of the concept is the fact that it can actually be achieved (Hollings et al, 2000); however the uncertainty that has now become so entrenched in discussions about the environment and resource management has raised many questions about the goals of sustainable development. It has been pointed out that in spite of the centrality of sustainability to resource debates, as a concept it lacks consensus on meaning amongst academics (Gale and Cordray, 1994: 311). As a concept, sustainability is fraught with tension given the contradiction that lies between reconciling economic expansion with environmental preservation (Novek and Kampen, 1992; Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994). The definition of sustainability which is meeting the needs of today without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1997: 43) is in itself highly problematic. It is apparent that in many instances the ability to meet present need has been exceeded, and the recovery of some ecosystems and natural resources is questionable. It appears that in some cases the elasticity of natural resources, which refers to its ability to survive the pressures of exploitation, has been pushed to a breaking point (Murphy, 1994). In spite of these concerns, there are many who are now working in a concrete way with the concept and developing measurement indicators which can then be implemented in a positive way into policy formation (Beckley et al, 2002). Efforts to create a working tool out of the concept have given rise to sustainability 17 indicators, the popularity of them stemming from the way they can be used to communicate to the public the issue of citizen participation and responsibility (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998). Sustainability indicators are used to define things such as water or air quality, and are employed by different interest groups to heighten awareness of different risks, and promote community participation (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998; OECD, 1998). The discourse on sustainability is defined by science with discussions of sustainable development tend to be directly linked to, and framed by science, examples being that of global warming and ozone depletion (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998). General discussions on sustainability have broadened to include a range of concerns from how to sustain human communities, social systems, global niches, and ecosystem integrity (Gale and Cordray, 1994). Coinciding with these new ideas about sustainability has been a transformation in perceptions of what is important in life, and the development of measures (indicators) that can measure attainment of goals such as quality of life, ecological balance, social justice, and community sustainability (Henderson, 1991; Beckley et al 2002). Beckley et al (2002) have noted that if one would like to manage something by a specific standard, a consensual measurement must be identified, one which can measure both past and present trends, and then be manipulated in order to inform new policy that will help ensure a future for both the community. These new measurement standards, referred to as indicators, are continually being developed and fine-tuned in order to become more effective tools. Included in discussions of community sustainability are reflections on the necessity that communities be resilient and adaptive (den Otter and Beckley, 2002). Research on forest communities in Canada has identified that sustainable forest management requires the presence of specific criteria (such as conservation of biological diversity), and that the criteria can be used as a framework to track trends of sustainability in forest management (den Otter and Beckley, 2002). In Canada, there is an emerging field of research on community stability and sustainability that has identified several key indicators of sustainability in forestry communities that include population, employment, income, human capitol, poverty, and real estate (Nadeau et al, 1999; Beckley et al, 2002; den Otter and Beckley, 2002). Population trends reflect the movement of people in and out of a community, signifying employment opportunities, or a lack of them, and also patterns of movement such as outward migration of youth. Employment is important to a community's survival, and single industry towns are often highly susceptible to being 18 economically undermined through extraction of resources by externally owned and operated capital interests. Thomas Beckley at al (2002) have been developing comprehensive socio-economic indicators and they differentiate between two types of them. Profile indicators capture demographic information such as age, education, poverty and real estate values, while process indicators deal with causal effects and consist of variables such as leadership, volunteerism, social cohesion and attachment to place (Beckley et al, 2002). Profile and process indicators are presently being used by some researchers who are studying rural communities to gather information on community well-being (Nadeau et al, 1999). The importance of this discussion is that leadership, social capital (networks), and attachment to place as process indicators have been widely accepted by social scientists as making important contributions to the study of community sustainability. There is a growing body of literature that examines how the presence of specific social indicators in resource dependent communities can help to predict when a community will be able to adapt and sustain in spite of external forces (Nadeau et al, 1999; Beckley et al, 2002). Some of these studies focus on indicators that make predications about how individuals who, when faced with the dilemma of common pool resource exploitation, will organize and self-regulate in order that a resource not be overexploited (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Nadeau et al, 1999; Beckley et al, 2002). In a study 14 forest communities in Nepal, George Varughese and Elinor Ostrom (2001) show that in over 80 per cent of forest communities with high levels of collective action, the forest is improving, and where there is poor collective action, over 80 per cent of the forests are deteriorating. Many of the communities they observed were successfully engaged with co-user group management of the local forest in an equitable and a non-contentious approach that satisfied the user groups while meeting successful management goals of the forest management (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001). This work is supported by that of others that have researched whether the presence of these social indicators of sustainability helps to facilitate restoration and sustainability both of human communities and natural resources. It becomes apparent when reviewing the literature that common property theory is an integral part of discussions on sustainable practices. With this in mind, the following section provides an overview of common property theory as it pertains to rural communities and common pool resources. 19 Common Property Theory Community management of natural resources such as fisheries emerges on a local level from collaborative action that arises out of institutions such as local associations and traditional leadership (Pretty and Ward, 2001: 209). This form of social capital plays a central role in the development of cooperative management schemes that emerge in response to development problems. The important role that social capital plays in community governance is well-documented (Bowles and Gintis, 2002). Likewise, the negative impacts of erosion of social capital through excessive extraction of resources or the erosion of local knowledge has been identified (Neis et al, 1999; Nadasdy, 1999). This highlights the fact that any study of social capital particularly as it pertains to rural resource dependent communities would ideally provide an overview of common property theory. Sustainability resulting from community governance is an outcome of activism which in turn directly links to social capital. Community governance will play an increasing role in solving development and sustainability problems (Bowles and Gintis, 2001). Social capital leads to collective activism which in single resource dependent communities more often than not exhibits in the form of protectionism for the common property local resource. Protection of common property resources on the local level is directed towards sustainability, not only of the community's economic mainstay, but also of the ecosystem that supports the local resource. This has been noted in forestry and fishing communities in different parts of the world. Sustainability of these human and natural systems can help prevent erosion of social capital. Herein lies the logic of bringing these three concepts together. If social capital and sustainability are going to be studied in conjunction with each other together, logic dictates also that the investigation of common property theory and the impact it has had on the way that common property resources have been managed, particularly by the state, is an integral part of this. The following diagram attempts to systematically organize one possible way of conceptualizing them. 20 ..ae,VA,MMIV,WkWASW. ',31EAW, Social Indicators of Sustainability Activism Figure 2:1 Social Indicators of Sustainability and Common Property Theory Social Capital Networks Trust Common Property Theory I am arguing that social capital, indicators of sustainability, and common property theory need to be addressed in conjunction with each other and that there is a theoretical basis for doing this. Protectionism of common property is an indicator of social capital and an outcome of activism. Theory states that social capital is required for sustainable development, social indicators of sustainability can bring clarification to how sustainable development can be achieved, and common property theory shows how privatization of natural resources has led to degradation or resources and erosion of social capital in rural resource dependent communities. 21 It has been established that sustainability in single resource dependent communities is directly impacted not only by environmental issues of resource protection, but also by the ability of communities to manage, respect, and protect their common pool resources (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001). Commons theory as understood through the work of Garret Hardin has been wielded predominately by states and corporate interests, resulting in privatization schemes and corporate concentration of wealth (Marchak, 1988; Goldman, 1998; Copes, 1998; Copes, 1999). In his famous analysis titled "The Tragedy of the Commons", Garret Hardin (1968) attempts to rationally analyse the impact of population growth on natural resources, noting that the world's population is exponentially growing and that natural resources are finite. He frames his discussion in the context of the 'tragedy of the commons', the story line being that in an open pasture situation each herdsman will try to maximize their personal gain by placing more animals on the pasture to the point where it is destroyed, this without regard to fellow citizens. As a starting point, he assumes that the main historical events which have controlled the numbers of people and animals in a territory have been famine, disease, and war. The existence of social order and management systems that predate modernization do not factor in to his analysis. He assumes that a rational human in a common property situation will continually seek to maximize his gain, to the detriment of others and the environment. In an attempt to identify ways in which resolution may be found to the tragedy of the commons, he speculates that guilt will not work on the lay person who is exploiting the commons, and that mutually agreed upon coercion through social arrangements which demand responsibility may well be the only solution. It has been argued that Hardin starts on a flawed footing with his analysis, and likewise ends on one (Marchak, 1988; Goldman, 1998). The tragedy of the commons theory is sociologically naïve in that it does not account for the fact that privatization of resources has not led to preservation of the environment. It does not factor in the impacts of corporate profiteering, expansionism, and the invasive technologies used to achieve these goals (Marchak, 1988; Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994; Silk, 2001). Nor does it account for the documented existence of traditional communities that had sophisticated management systems (Johannes, 1981; McCay and Acheson, 1987; Berkes, 1987). It does not recognize the ability of groups to collectively organize and self-regulate. While individuals may not always be conservation minded, there are often social norms, 22 values, and rules that can be imposed and maintained in smaller communities (Berkes, 1987; Acheson, 1987). As well, there is generally an attachment to the community which provides additional incentive to implement protective measures. Privatization has actually led to large scale destruction of resources globally and the undermining of communities with historical dependency (Diegues, 1998), leading to what Bonnie McCay and James Acheson (1987) state should more aptly read the "tragedy of commoners" (55). Antonio Diegues (1998) notes that the commons institutions that exist in the Brazilian Amazon contradict the basic tenets of Hardin's 'tragedy of the commons theory' and that the history of the area shows quite clearly that privatization has actually led to large scale destruction of the environment. Accordingly, it could be argued that the tragedy of the commons occurs not because of greed but because of institutional failure (Goldman, 1998; Holling et al 2000). Alternatives to conventional common pool resource theory that assumes all local resource users will fall into the trap of the 'commons tragedy' have been explored and proposed by many academics (Marchak, 1988, Ostrom, 2001). Commons theory has been heavily critiqued for several reasons: it does not acknowledge traditional communities that had sophisticated management systems (Diegues, 1998), it ignores the fact that resource depletion tends to result from excessive exploitation by commercial interests, not their common property status, and the theory does not account for the fact that privatization of resources has not led to preservation of the environment (Marchak, 1988; Goldman, 1998). In a Canadian based study that looks exploitation of the fishing and forestry industries, Patricia Marchak (1988) presents an alternative analysis of common property theory. She examines the flawed logic common property theory suggesting that with regards to the fishing and forestry industries of British Columbia, the argument is completely misplaced because the resource depletion results from excessive state supported exploitation by commercial interests not their common property status (Marchak, 1988). Marchak distinguishes between two distinctly different definitions of common property. Contemporary economic theory defines common property as property that no one owns but all can make use of, and it assumes that if outside forces do not implement measures of control, degradation will occur. According to Marchak (1988), the definition that more accurately reflects historical reality is the notion of a common resource where a collective group manages and controls who has access, a situation that can be seen in 23 more traditional fishing and forestry communities. This perspective has been supported by the work of academics from many different parts of the world (Johannes, 1981; Doeringer and Terkla, 1995; Diegues, 1998; Copes, 1999; Ruohomaki, 1999; Griffith and Pizzini, 2002). An example of this is the hunting territories of the Chisasibi Cree of Northern Canada. The hunting grounds are not perceived as private property; they are viewed as communal and there are 'hunting bosses' who show leadership by consent (Berkes, 1987). The system is presently under pressure due to increased access, erosion of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) values, and increased technological pressures. Berkes (1987), using his Cree fishery experience, challenges the assumptions of the commons model noting that in the Cree way of doing things common property does not mean open access: individual interest does not override collective interest and resource depletion does not exceed the rate of resource renewal of the stock (Berkes, 1987). Marchak (1988) presents a compelling argument that to call natural resources under public management common property is historically inaccurate, because historical usage referred to a situation where a set of rules existed to control access and management, so in a sense, there were co-owners. Given this, common property is a contradiction because it refers to property that no one owns, everyone can access, and no one has the authority to manage it. Common property theory was highly influential in shaping Canadian fisheries policy, particularly through the work of Scott Gordon (Marchak, 1988; Wright, 2000). In governance of the Canadian fishery and forestry industries, the state acted on the assumption that individuals were only concerned with maximizing short term gain with no concern for the long term status of the resource. This line of reasoning was then used to justify the transference of historical common property rights to corporate interests through privatization schemes such as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) in Canadian fisheries (Sinclair, 1988; Finlayson, 1994; Copes, 1999). In this way the state supported the interests of capital, while neglecting the reality of historical community management schemes and attachment rights. In the case of fisheries, not only in Canada but world wide, it has been argued that state mismanagement has played a major role in degradation of marine resources (Steele et al, 1992; Safina, 1995). When corporate ownership takes control, the method, pace, and the technologies utilized are such that rapid degradation takes place, and once the profits diminish, 24 companies generally relocate (Marchak, 1988; Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994; Jacobson, 2000). It is a well established fact that corporations are driven by economic efficiency models whose the goal is to achieve the highest profits obtainable in the most rapid time (Marchak, 1988; Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994; Franklin, 1999). For the most part, corporate interests have not historically focused on issues of conservation. The negative impacts that result from privatization of resource include corporate concentration of wealth, intensification of effort, and increasingly hard-hitting technologies under the guise of efficiency. Upon reviewing 'the tragedy of the common' theory and its influence on the formation of state policies with respect to closure of the commons through privatization, there is a certain appeal in the sentiment of Michael Goldman (1998). He questions how it is that Hardin's work has sustained, and been built upon to the point where there is a virtual "'monotonal' epistemic community' (Goldman, 1998: 21) of scholars and professionals who adhere to the "discursive modalities" (21) of the tragedy theory. Linking the Concepts Bringing together these three concepts presents a difficult theoretical task due to the complexity and diversity of meaning that has been ascribed to them, and also, the extent to which meaning is constantly shifting due to the rapid pace of development that affects all three issues. However, the process of trying to tease out what is theoretically relevant or statistically significant is important. Proving empirical causality is beyond the scope of this thesis and would perhaps be difficult for these listed reasons. However, working with the concepts to discover how they correlate, what the social significance of them is, and how they can have an impact in future development of natural resource extraction policies represents a vital part of the sustainable development process. Community management of local common pool resources has been identified as a form of social capital, to the extent that the actual act of creating and implementing management schemes is a form of activism (Pretty and Ward, 2001). The variables I explore in this thesis have been chosen in an effort to bring further clarification to the relationship between three overlapping, complex, and continually evolving concepts, all of which are vital to sustainable development. In addition to networks, trust, and leadership, I have chosen to examine 'sense of ownership', a concept that builds to some extent on the concept 'attachment to place' (den Otter and Beckley, 2002). The 25 term emerged after much deliberation, as a social indicator of sustainability that might best describe why local fishers have shown such strong protectionism over the local resource. I included questions both for the survey questionnaire and the oral interviews that were designed to probe individual sense of ownership. Petty Harbour has a well- documented history of local management that extends well beyond the basics over its perceived resources, and while is not possible to empirically prove what precisely gave rise to this, one can speculate that it may stem from a combination of self-serving interests (continuing livelihood) and a sense of obligation to protect the resource. I am attempting through integrating three complex concepts, all of which play important roles in community management and protectionism of resource, to provide at least a partial explanations to these questions and determine if there are meaningful policy implications. The Research Question and Hypothesis Whether examining development issues, political activism, or sustainability issues, there are similar theoretical threads. It is well documented that one's involvement with networks influences participation in activism, and that activism links to social capital. The focus of this thesis is on the aspect of social capital that looks at the ways in which individual participation in activism is influenced by ties to family and friends, and trust in one's community. I measure networks (structural aspects of social capital) and trust (cognitive aspect of social capital). These choices in measurement are based on previous work on social capital, and find credibility in the area of development and sustainability ((Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Stolle and Rochon, 2001; Grootaert et al, 2004). I also look at leadership and sense of ownership over fish resources. The research question I ask in this thesis is: what social phenomena can explain the historically high level of activism of commercial fishers with respect to protectionism over fish resources in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland? My hypotheses are that the level of individual activism will have a positive correlation with: 1) The extent of one's social ties to people in various community positions (structural social capital, networks) 2) One's perception that neighbours help out in a crisis (cognitive social capital, trust). 26 I suggest that the presence of social capital is necessary but not sufficient to explain individual activism. I introduce leadership and sense of ownership as intervening variables to further explore explanations for the activism that has led to stewardship of fish resource on a local level. Figure 1 below provides a theoretical presentation of my variables and lays out the potential relationships between social capital, leadership, sense of ownership, and activism. I am making a distinction between structural social capital which references ties to family, friends and organization networks, and cognitive social capital which encompasses human agency and inherent trust. The diagram is not designed as a statement of proven causal relationships, rather it is meant to suggest possible relationships between my variables including some of the ways that they might influence each other. I explore in this thesis the ways in which social capital can lend itself both to the development of community leadership and a sense of ownership, which is defined in part by the way fishers have strived to create and maintain rules for participation in the fishery. I am also suggesting that leadership may explain in part a continuum that sees social capital lead to activism outcomes such as the protection of common property fish resources. 27 Figure 2:1 Theoretical Diagram: Social Capital, structural and cognitive Leadership — a mobilizing factor? z Social Capital Structural Community Networks Inherited Ties I Social Capital Cognitive Agency Inherent Trust Activism Outcomes Protection of common property resources Creation of Co-op Formation of community groups / ^■ Sense of Ownership Rules for participation Committees for allocation Community specified right of access 28 Treating activism as a dependent variable I use both bivariate and multiple regression analysis to examine the correlation between my variables leadership, social capital (networks and trust), and sense of ownership. I expect the results of my study will show a positive correlation between social capital and activism, and that leadership and sense of ownership will positively correlate with these variables, thus explaining, at least in part, the existence of the community's history of strong management practices over its fishing commons. I am suggesting that the variables leadership and sense of ownership as potential catalysts that act as a mobilization factor that allows social capital to become a working asset. While data collected in a single case study such as mine cannot realistically be generalized to a broader population (statistical generalization), it can however provide analytical generalizations that may be extended to theoretical propositions (Yin, 1989: 21). 29 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter provides a detailed description of the methodology employed in data collection. The introductory part of this chapter provides ethnographic details of my background with Petty Harbour, why I choose to conduct my research there, and how I re-introduced myself to the community after a twelve year absence. I describe my population of interest, and the specific procedures of my sampling strategy, data collection, and details on the numbers of returned questionnaires and oral interviews conducted. I then define my variables and discuss how they are operationalized. Meeting the Community The choice of Petty Harbour as the site for my research was influenced by three factors. I had been a resident fisher myself, living there for almost 20 years, and was familiar with the community. The community had a well documented history of organization and activism that could be traced back to the 1800s, which made it a place of interest for my study. In April 2005 I attended an international conference on the state of world fisheries (Shifting Gears) that was held in St. John's and Petty Harbour. It was at this time that I came in contact with several Petty Harbour fishers and was able to get a sense of how responsive the community might be to my research. Having received positive feedback through conversations, I returned to the community in late December 2005 to conduct my field research. I had not lived in the community for over a decade and there had been many changes, particularly in light of the 1992 moratorium on fishing Northern cod. When I returned to Newfoundland in December, 2005, I moved into Petty Harbour for the duration of my field work, three months. In order to re-introduce myself to the community, I attended three local meetings that were being held on community development. One of the striking things about Petty Harbour with its population of approximately 915 people, is the number of active committees that is has. In the early 1990s there were eleven recognized, fully active community groups that included Protestant and Catholic church organizations, the school, the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Producer Co-op, three fishers committees, the sports committee, the Harbour Authority, youth and recreation, an incorporated town council, and a development committee that 30 was formed with members from all groups. Today, most of these groups are still active in some capacity, and many of them can be found with their own listed numbers in the phone book. This is an exceptional number of community organizations for such a small community, and is an indication of the fact that social capital exists in Petty Harbour. It was during these meetings that initial contacts were made, particularly because people were curious about where I had been, why I was back, what for, and for how long. As with most small rural communities, people are inquisitive and everyone wants to know what everyone else is doing. The other approach I took was to talk about my research at any given opportunity. In a small community, newcomers or those returning home are always noticed, and people are curious about what you have been up to since you were last at home. This provided the ideal opportunity to introduce my research topic to many people, and also inquire as to whether they would be interested in being interviewed. There were social moments in corner stores, or when someone would stop and offer me a lift somewhere, and likewise when I attended meetings. I carried an informal handout with me at all times, one that briefly described the intent of my research. Several fishers showed a high level of interest in the research, stating that they would be interested in talking about the fishery. I also used informal social events as an opportunity to explain what I was doing. I spent the better part of two months moving through the community, creating a presence so to speak, and collecting background information on the state of the fishery as well as what had taken place in the community in the years since I left. People were receptive to the research, in the words of one fisher: "The community has been researched to death, so we're used to this, but anything that will help is good". (Petty Harbour fisher) Needless to say, there were many dramatic changes since I left the community: people were fishing in much bigger boats, and using Global Position System (GPS) which had not been a locally used technology, to fish much greater distances offshore. While I knew that there had been a decrease in the numbers of people fishing, I had not realized the extent of this. When the moratorium was called in July 1992, there were well over one hundred licenced fishers with many more unlicenced fishing fulltime in the handline cod fishery. I had expected to be mailing out 110 questionnaires at a minimum however in the end there were only 69 fishers left in the community, several of these being retired 31 fishers. Of the 69 questionnaire mailed out, 33 of them were returned. Specific Procedures Research Sample My target population and sampling frame were one and the same: individuals who had fished commercially in the past and/or present in Petty Harbour. The decision to send out survey questionnaires to as many fishers as possible rather than conduct a random sample survey was based on the fact that my case study involved a small and geographically specific population, and I wanted to generate the highest level of results from as many fishers as possible. The criteria that determined who would be included in my sample population was as follows: men and women, who were licenced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to fish commercially in the past and/or present, and who located their commercial enterprise on the legally recognized fishing grounds of Petty Harbour. This included predominately resident fishers but also some who lived outside of the community. The participants average age at the time of completing the survey questionnaire was 53 years old and of the thirty-three who returned the questionnaire, 31 were male (94%) and 2 were female (6%). The majority of participants were either legally married (79%) or living common-law (9%), and most of them had children, of whom one or more were still living at home. Only 6 per cent of the participants declared themselves to have a profession other than fishing (professional trades); the majority were still fishing fulltime (82%), and the remainder declared themselves to be retired fishers (12%). For most of the fishers, Petty Harbour had been their home for greater than three generations (76%), with most people declaring that they had extended family living in the community. Ethical Review The study involved human subjects and therefore an ethical review and clearance of the research was required. The application, certificate of approval, and the letter of consent for the oral interviews can be found in the Appendices. The survey instrument that was mailed out provided a letter of introduction that included a statement that the participant was acknowledging that by completing and returning the questionnaire, they were providing permission for use of the data. This also is in the Appendices. 32 Survey Instruments The survey instrument was a twenty page questionnaire that was sent out by mail with return postage. This thesis has been premised upon the data that was collected through the questionnaire. I conducted ten semi-unstructured oral interviews that provide interesting and relevant qualitative data that lends support to the thesis. Data Collection and Handling My data collection took place in the months of January to March, 2006. Data was collected both through a mail out survey questionnaire (see Appendix 1) and oral interviews. Although Petty Harbour has its own tiny post office I felt that for the purposes of anonymity, it would be better to rent a post office box in St. John's that correspondence could be returned to. The data collected through the mail out questionnaire was designed to provide information on pre and post moratorium levels of leadership, sense of ownership, activism, and networks and trust. The main contact with participants was through meetings held by community organizations, the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Producer Co-op, and the mail out survey that invited participants to contact myself should they be interested in an interview. There has been a dramatic demographic change to the numbers of licenced fishers in the community since the 1992 moratorium. According to the Atlantic Fishing Licence Directory, there were 112 fishers licenced in 1985 for groundfish (Anon, 1985). Separate from this there were many more unlicenced regular fulltime fishers, because the hook and line cod fishery did not require a licence at the time, nor did many of the smaller, less lucrative fisheries such as herring and squid. Today there are 54 fulltime licenced fishers in the community. I had originally hoped to garner the support of the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Committee in locating a complete membership list, and also to possibly provide a letter of introduction in support of my research. However this did not materialize for several reasons. One was the fact that negotiations for snow crab quotas and areas to be fished were ongoing during the months of January and February, which meant many of the fishers who occupied positions on community fisheries boards (Co-op, Fishermen's Committee) were tied up in meetings. The only commercial fishery at this time in the community is the snow crab fishery which is limited to the late spring and early summer. The negotiations were not going well and a potential strike situation was looming. Many of the local fishers were obliged to attend these negotiations, as community votes were 33 being held throughout the Southern Shore of the Avalon Peninsula, the area which includes Petty Harbour. Another factor was that I was not aware of was that a new committee called the Harbour Authority had been formed, initially to manage wharves and breakwaters on behalf of the federal government's Small Craft Harbours. Over time, the Harbour Authority wound up having a sweeping range of designated tasks, and it had more or less replaced the need for an active fishermen's committee. Compounded with these two issues was the untimely death of a high profile fisher in the community who was related to approximately 40 per cent of the population I was preparing to either meet with and interview, or mail a survey to. As a result of this tragic event, the annual Co-op meeting that was scheduled to be held in early January, was cancelled and not rescheduled until late February. The combination of these unanticipated circumstances resulted in the mail out to many of the fishers being delayed. During this time frame, I met on two occasions with the vice-president of the Co-op board who updated me on the present status of the fishery, the Co-op, and plant closures in the community. I also had a lengthy meeting with the head of the Harbour Authority. When the Fishermen's Co-op finally held its annual meeting in late February, I was invited to attend and provided with the opportunity to address the meeting, explain my research, and hand out questionnaires to those who had not received one. The head of the Co-op board endorsed my research at this meeting and urged members to take the time to fill out the questionnaires and return them. In hindsight, this was probably the most productive meeting attended, as over 50 per cent of the questionnaires were returned within two weeks of this meeting. I believe that this speaks to the influence that the Co-op has with its fishing membership. The intention was to send out a survey to as many past and/or present fishers of the community (this turned out to be 69) and to invite them also to partake in an oral interview. My hope was to receive at least 30-35 returned questionnaires and interview between 15-20 fishers. The end result was 33 returned questionnaires, a return rate of 40 per cent, and ten oral interviews Participants filled out the questionnaires in their own homes, and the time commitment to do this was approximately 30-40 minutes. Initially I completed three of the questionnaires with fishers who had expressed an interest in meeting with me, and was able to use this as an opportunity to revise my questionnaire based on their comments. The process proved to be invaluable as there were several questions that required clarification. Separate from this, there were a few fishers who 34 asked if I would fill out the questionnaires with them, which I was happy to do as this tended to elicit much more information that one would normally get in response to a self- administered questionnaire. While the majority of questions offered a likert scale response, there were several opportunities to write a detailed response. Those who requested help with the questionnaires were older fishers over the age of 60, and I suspect that a lack of confidence with reading and writing skills may explain this as many of the older fishers left school at an early age, often prior to completing grade school. The questionnaire elicited information on pre and post moratorium levels of network embeddedness and trust (social capital), activism, leadership, and sense of ownership. It also served to collect information on trends in past and present fishing practices, intensification of fishing technologies through changes to vessel size and capacity, and demographic data on education. When participants received their survey questionnaires they were also invited to participate in a voluntary oral interview process with myself. As a result of this, I was able to conduct ten oral interviews, each of which took about two hours to conduct (see Appendix 4). The interviews were designed to collect more detailed qualitative information about the perceptions that fishers have of their present role in the fishery, causes of the destruction of the fishery, and perceived solutions to the fishery crisis. I was very concerned that I would have a poor response rate with the mail out survey, so I designed the oral interview questions to overlap with the survey in order to capture the information I was looking for on my variables. I also stuck to the format in a somewhat rigid manner, and in hindsight, I could have afforded more flexibility to the oral interview schedule. The returned questionnaires were completely anonymous; no names were attached to them and they were stored in a secured place. The oral interviews were coded and were also stored for reasons of confidentiality in a secured location. Introducing the Hypotheses The concepts I explore in this thesis are activism, social capital, leadership, and sense of ownership. Three of these concepts have been identified as important indicators of sustainability; the one that has not been developed is sense of ownership. The following section provides definitions of my concepts and how, for the purpose of measurement, they are operationalized. I am trying to establish possible explanations that can explain the high level of activism in Petty Harbour. My hypothesis is that individuals with strong 35 network ties both to relatives or prominent individuals (leaders) and also to community organizations will be more likely to participate in activism. I also suggest that sense of ownership over fish resources may be a predicator of activism. It has been noted that high measures of social capital do not necessarily translate into activism, and that human agency is required to mobilize social capital. One documented example of this is research conducted in India that was able to establish that new agency in the form of younger, better educated leaders provided a catalyst to create functional social capital for the communities under study (Krishna, 2002). I am examining how social capital is mobilized and present the hypotheses that leadership and sense of ownership, as intervening variables, are potential catalysts. Defining the Concepts Measuring Social Capital Social capital, broadly speaking, refers to the networks, norms, trust, and reciprocity that exist between people within a given community or region, which enables people to work together in some capacity in order to generate mutual benefits (Putnam et al, 1993; Baron et al, 2000; Krishna, 2002). I use the concept social capital to describe how network embeddedness and trust that exists between people within a given community can generate mutually beneficial returns both for individuals and the community. A review of the indicators used to measure social capital in thirteen studies from several different countries, showed that eight were strictly based on networks, four used networks and norms, and one used norms only (Krishna, 2002). Anirudh Krishna (2002) presents a compelling argument against conflating norms with networks, noting that this is the approach that Putnam et al (1993) and many others have used. He suggests that there are two different dimensions to social capital (structural and cognitive) and that valuable information will be lost if one does not treat them separately for the purpose of measurement. I measure both networks (structural aspects of social capital) and trust (cognitive aspect of social capital), which is identified as a main attribute of norms for the purpose of measuring social capital (Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Stolle and Rochon, 2001). I relied on my knowledge of the community when creating the survey questionnaire in an effort to more accurately capture what constitutes social capital in the context of Petty Harbour. I then chose relevant indicators that have been used in many studies to measure both network ties and trust. 36 Social Capital Networks The objective with the social capital networks section is to measure network ties that participants have, both to other individuals and to informal and formal organizations. The literature on network ties examines the concept that interpersonal ties to others come in a measurable range: one can have no ties, weak ties, or strong ties (Granovetter, 1973). It has been argued that weak ties can provide better transmission of a broader range of information because through acquaintances, one is exposed to new information, new contacts, whereas within one's close personal network of friends, there is less new information being transmitted. Mark Granovetter (1973) was highly influential in developing this earlier work on network ties. He used his work to examine how one's networks could enhance one's job opportunities and discovered that people were more likely to find new jobs through weak acquaintances (Granovetter, 1973). While this may be the case in his study, much of the literature on activism indicates that contrary to his line of reasoning, stronger ties appear play a greater role in influencing peoples' decisions to participate (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Passy, 2003; Dale, 2005; Tilly, 2005). This apparently links to some extent to the need for a strong element of trust to be present when people are making the decision to engage in activism, especially if risk is involved (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Tilly, 2005). I developed several questions that provided participants with an opportunity to discuss network ties and trust, both of which are being employed to measure individual levels of social capital. In order to establish a measure for formal and informal network ties, two questions were developed that asked individuals about their involvement with local community groups and organizations both prior to the 1992 moratorium, and presently. These questions find their legitimacy for two reasons. They are recognized as measures in the theoretical literature on social capital as it pertains to participation in formal and informal associations or groups. In the context of Petty Harbour, the organizations chosen reflect the groups within the community that are responsible for the majority, if not all, of the running of the community and its volunteerism. Two questions examine the participant's attachment to the following community organizations: church, school, council, fishers committee, and other. The questions provided four optional answers which have been used to measure individual level of involvement with various community groups. The numerical values range from zero (not a member), to 1 (inactive), 2 (slightly active), and 3 (highly active). 37 Question 35 (Appendix 1) asks: Please indicate any community organizations that you belonged to prior to the 1992 Northern cod moratorium and your level of involvement. Question 40 (Appendix 1) is in essence, a repeat of this; however it specifically asks what types of organizations the respondent currently is a member of: What community organizations, if any, do you currently belong to and what best describes your level of involvement. Please check of any organizations that you are involved with in the response column that reflects your level of activity as a member. In order to establish personal network ties, the participants were asked to complete a matrix question that provided an opportunity to state their individual ties to other people of prominence within the community, and the strength of the relationship (acquaintance, good friend, relative, themselves). It has been established that intimate relationships and strong ties help to facilitate collaborative action that produces collective benefits (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Passy, 2003; Tilly, 2005). The assigned values are 1 (know someone like this), 0 (I don't know someone like this) and -9 is the missing value. The intention of was to provide a scale of weaker ties (acquaintance) and stronger ones (good friends, relatives). This type of question has been used by others to establish strength of ties, and the particular format used in the questionnaire was based on the Vancouver Island Wilderness Preservation Movement Study by Dr. David B Tindall (2002). The participant is invited to check off as many relevant boxes as necessary, for example, if they know a community leader and also consider themselves to be one, they would check both boxes. This matrix question was comprised of the following: Question 29 (Appendix 1): Please describe your relationship to the following types of people in Petty Harbour. You can check one or more boxes, for example, if you know a community leader well, and you also consider yourself to be one, you would check off both the 'Good Friend' column and the 'Myself' column. The matrix question is comprised of the following statements. I know someone who is... • Recognized in my community as a leader • A municipal politician • A religious leader 38 • An organizer of community events • A spokesperson for the community • Working to better the community • A board member for a local organization In each case, the participant can check off one or more of four options: acquaintance, relative, good friend, myself. Blank responses were coded as 'I do not know someone like this'. Social Capital: trust For Petty Harbour, the indicators chosen to measure trust are based both on the literature and on my personal knowledge of the community as a long term resident fisher. Trust is measured by asking questions on whether fishers can rely on others to help out in a crisis while at sea or on land, whether neighbors can be relied upon to help out in a crisis, and one's sense of safety within the community. These indicators are not only supported by the literature but they are also contextually meaningful in terms of Petty Harbour. Grootaert et al (2004) point out that one of the ways to address the criticism that generalized trust is not indicative of what occurs in local social groups is to introduce contextually relevant indicators to the one's survey. With this in mind, I developed indicators that find their legitimacy both in the literature and in my knowledge of the community. The fishers of Petty Harbour, like those in many other small rural fishing communities, risk their lives on a regular basis by fishing in inclement weather. Its location on the most easterly point of North America means that its shores are unprotected and exposed to the powerful forces of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Petty Harbour fishers have a lengthy history of looking out for each other while at sea and this in part probably explains why there has been no loss of community fishers at sea for as far back as people can remember. There are many examples in the community history where neighbors and residents exhibited the type of social capital that Krishna (2002) refers to as cognitive social capital, otherwise referred to as trust. In the 1980s when a house burnt down, within six days an ad hoc concerned citizens committee was formed, and four months later enough funds had been raised to rebuild the house. Labour was provided for free by members of the community. This same decade saw a large section of the fishermen's co-op destroyed by fire, and this was rebuilt by the co-op members. On several 39 occasions, such as the Ethiopian famine that was ongoing in the early 1980s, thousands of dollars were raised through local fundraising efforts such as bingo or card games that were held in the local churches. On more than one occasion money to send an individual to the mainland for medical treatment has been raised. These types of behaviours are strong indicators of social capital according to the literature and it appears that the tradition of lending a hand to one's neighbor is still very strong in the community. I designed six questions that are viewed as standard indicators of trust in rural communities. The questions probe the issue community safety, whether neighbors and fishers can be relied on to help out in a time of crisis, perceptions of community safety, and whether there has ever been a time when the community has rallied to come to the aid of a family in crisis. All but one of the questions (38 — yes/no/not sure) provide a scale response of strongly agree to strongly disagree response. The following questions were designed to measure the extent to which trust is (and was) present in Petty Harbour. Question 38 (Appendix 1) asks: Has there ever been a local problem or disaster where collectively, people from the community have pooled their time and/or resources to help out? The response to this was almost unanimous with thirty-one of the thirty-three respondents answering yes, not surprising given the community's history of pitching in when a personal crisis of magnitude strikes. Another indicator of trust in the literature examines the type of support that one perceives to exist in their community. With this in mind I designed three questions on community trust that probed the respondent's perceived trust in the community and also whether fishers both historically and presently could be relied on to help each other out. The indicators I chose to measure trust are similar to some that have been used by the World Bank in development studies (Grootaert at al, 2004) Question 41 (Appendix 1): Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Your community as a safe place both for yourself and your children. 40 Question 43 (Appendix 1): Prior to the 1992 moratorium could fishers rely on help from other fishers if they had problems (boat or gear) either on land or while at sea? Question 44 (Appendix 1): Since the 1992 moratorium fishers can still rely on help from other fishers if they have boat or gear problems either on land or while at sea. The responses reflected a high level of agreement by the participants to these statements and the results are presented in chapter five (79). Activism I am using this concept to describe collective involvement of individuals in social and political processes directed at maintaining a perceived right, such as the right to fish, to have one's school remain open, or to be consulted on decisions that will affect one's personal, family, or community life. I examine activities that have been collectively or individually engaged in, that play a role in sustainability of community resources. This is in keeping with the idea that collective activism that derives from individual behaviour, generating beneficial results either for the individual or community is a measurable form of social capital. This concept also includes the idea of resistance, and any action that is undertaken to defend perceived rights, demonstrations against existing political structures or powers, lobbies for or against social, economic, or political change. Section two of the questionnaire was designed to provide information on the participants' perceptions of what constitutes effective activism, their individual participation in activities that targeted social and/or political change, and whether Petty Harbour was politically active both prior to, and since, the 1992 Northern cod moratorium. It has been noted that one's perception of how effective an action will be, can in fact influence one's decision to participate in collective activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). For this reason I created a question that asked about the perceived effectiveness of several different types of activism. The objective was to produce a measure of individual activism, the results of which could then be correlated with the three variables: social capital (network ties and trust), leadership, and sense of ownership Question 11 (Appendix 1): Below are listed a variety of activities that people engage in order to 41 obtain a concession from government or achieve a community goal. Please indicate your level of agreement on how effective the actions listed below are. The participant was given the option to respond to a 'strongly agree to strongly disagree' scale for seven statements about activities that they consider to be effective when lobbying for change. The design of this question was inspired by, and is similar to, a question on activism in the Vancouver Island Wilderness Preservation Movement Study (Tindall, 2002). The intent of the question is to determine community specific, relevant indicators of activism. As well, it helps to provide an insight into whether perceptions of effective action translate into action when compared with the question that asks what activities one has engaged in. To measure individual activism, question 13 asked the participant to check either yes or no in response to a list of eight questions about personal involvement with specific activities that are recognized in the literature to be good indicators of social capital. The response options were either yes (1), or no (0), and a minus 9 was employed for missing values. These questions were used to create a single indicator of activism that was then used as a dependent variable. The rational and results of this are discussed in chapter six (72). There were three more questions that probed participant's sense of whether Petty Harbour fishers have engaged in activism that challenged authority. Question 12: Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: in the past, the fishers of Petty Harbour have successfully faced challenges and stood their ground against adversarial pressures, such as fish marketing problems or threats to its protected area. Question 14: Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty Harbour was a politically active community prior to the 1992 moratorium. Question 15: Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty Harbour is politically active community today. 42 In all three questions, there was again strong consensus amongst the participants with over 90 per cent stating they agreed with the statements. Leadership: the mobilization catalyst? Conceptually, I am defining leadership as the actions of individuals who engage with social and political activities at their own personal expense (time, money, personal safety) in an effort to effect change that is viewed by others as positive, and is therefore supported by a collectivity of people. Petty Harbour has had a well-documented, lengthy history of strong leadership. I devised a set of questions in order to 1) tease out a community specific relevant definition of leadership and 2) determine whether participants believed that their community has had strong leadership according to this definition. The intent was to try and establish whether these perceptions of leadership influence one's involvement with, activism. Question 27 (Appendix 1) of the questionnaire is a matrix question that allowed the participant to state their level of agreement with five statements about leadership attributes. There is a sixth statement that asks if the community has leadership as per the previous five statements. Question 27 (Appendix 1): The following are statements that reflect different ideas about what characteristics a leader has. Please check off your level of agreement with each of the following statements. The response scale is 'strongly agree to strongly disagree' with values of 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree), 1 (strongly disagree), and -9 (not sure). There was unanimous agreement that the community had strong leadership; however, this question did not produce significant results when correlated with activism, a fact that may be explained by the lack of variation in responses, or the way the question was structured. Nonetheless, it provides a strong statement about the perception of leadership in Petty Harbour, supporting to an extent, the theoretical link between leadership and activism. Several of the questions on leadership allowed the participant to write comments, and one in particular, evoked many responses that indicated strong community leadership. 43 Question 34: How would you describe the level of leadership in your community since the 1992 Northern cod moratorium?' The following is an example of one the written responses: "Fishery and municipal leadership has been quite strong in helping people adjust to changes and explaining alternatives to the fishermen and diversifying the fishery" (Petty Harbour fisher) Leadership was identified both in responses to the survey questions and in many of the oral interviews the question of leadership came up as one of the key explanations to strength of the social fabric in Petty Harbour A new indicator of sustainability: sense of ownership The origin of this concept evolved out of a lengthy struggle with trying to define from a personal perspective, what could explain the way Petty Harbour fishers continually lobbied for the right to control their fishery and the local management of the resource. I held debates with others on what conceptually would help to define these actions. Much of the literature on social capital emphasizes the fact that people engage in self-serving activities; however this does not adequately address what I know about the community. The concept 'sense of ownership' is broadly defined as belief in both the fact that there should be right to access and control fish resources and that there exists the collective ability to effectively manage the fish resources. Den Otter and Beckley (2002) note that when trying to measure community well-being and sustainability, subjective measures may hold more promise, pointing out that as an indicator, attachment to place has great potential. They state that this concept embraces people's own sense of attachment, and satisfaction with their community. They note also that whatever one chooses to use as a measure should accurately reflect the social reality of the local people under investigation and that it should carry meaning for them. Based on my experience as a resident fisher in the community, I have chosen to use the concept of 'sense of ownership', as I believe that this term captures the essence of what may explain the level of activism witnessed in Petty Harbour over the decades, and its struggle to protect of its fishing commons. I believe that sense of ownership, much like attachment to place, has the potential to be a powerful social indicator of sustainability. 44 In this section I have been obliged to rely on my personal knowledge of the Petty Harbour as there is not a body of literature that deals specifically with this concept. It has been noted that the development of indicators should ideally be developed with input from the community to which they will be applied in order to ensure that they are relevant (den Otter and Beckley, 2002; Krishna, 2002). Using my past knowledge of the community in conjunction with current informal conversations with local fishers, I believe that 'sense of ownership' as a concept best explains the way in which local fishers believed in the right to control, manage, and protect common property fish resources. I suggest that these perceived rights have evolved for two different reasons. One is the fact that the community has for over three centuries been exclusively dependent on commercial fishing of the Northern cod and that with this comes a sense of inherent right. The other influencing factor is that from the perspective of local fishers, the fishing enterprise entails a great deal of expense and this combined with the purchase of fishing licences leads to the perception of ownership, in other words, a belief that the DFO licence bestows an additional right of access. The DFO Fisheries Act defines a commercial licence as a privilege, one that can be controlled, suspended, or revoked when necessary. The result is an existing tension between DFO law and fishers sense of ownership. Further complicating the idea of a licence being a right is the notion of private property. Commercial fishing licences for lucrative species are bought and sold, between fishers, and outside the terms of the law, in some cases for hundreds of thousands of dollars. While this is not legally recognized, it is a fact that all involved are aware of. Licences are treated as a commodity, one that can realize a high return on the private market; and while the licencing fee remains the same from DFO, there is private exchange for gain that goes on. In the case of the Newfoundland fisher, this expensive licencing scheme is relatively new, only recently evolved with the lucrative snow crab fishery. However, the investment in gear and boats that allowed one to fish the licence has always been expensive, thus creating a situation of investment, and therefore a sense of ownership over that investment which includes the legal right to fish. The third section of the survey questionnaire provides data on the participant's sense of ownership, and likewise on ways in which there has been stewardship of the community's fish resources. 45 Question 17: Please circle the response that best describes who you think should have the final say over matters affecting fishing rights in your community. Question 18: Please circle the level of agreement with the following statement: Your children should have the right to fish on their community's recognized fishing grounds. Question 19: Please circle the response that best describes your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove should be consulted about changes in fishing policies that will directly affect the fishers and fishery of the community. The rationale for using these questions as indicators the variable 'sense of ownership' is that they are locally relevant to the community, and they reflect to a large extent my personal pre-moratorium knowledge of fishers' attitudes towards the fish that annually migrated through the community. The fishers of Petty Harbour feel strongly about 'their' fish, their right to make decisions about how, when, and by whom, fishing should be allowed. They also feel very strongly that fishing rights belong in the community and should be on reserve for future generations of Petty Harbour residents. Conclusion This chapter provided a detailed description of the methodology I employed in my data collection. The introductory part of this chapter provided an overview of the approach to my research project and the ethnographic details of my background with Petty Harbour. I explained my rationale for choosing of Petty Harbour as a community to research, and how I re-introduced myself to the community after a twelve year absence. I described my population of interest, my sampling strategy, data collection, and details on the numbers of returned questionnaires. I defined my variables and discussed how I operationalized them. The next chapter provides an historical overview of the community including the emergence of modern industrial fisheries and the socio-economic impacts associated with fisheries modernization. 46 CHAPTER FOUR: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY Introduction This chapter provides an historical overview to my case study, thus contextually situating the community of Petty Harbour. In order to understand the present state of the fishery in Petty Harbour, I review the historical context which gave rise to the modern industrial fishery, the economic rational that directed this, and how modernization of the industry has been instrumental in determining the face of today's fishery. The section on fisheries modernization includes a brief review of the existing literature on fishing technologies (Kodera, 1971; Santos et al, 1997), the state of marine ecosystems (Sherman and Gold, 1993), and the role of science in fisheries management. I then examine the socio- economic impacts of destroyed fisheries on coastal fishing communities with historical attachment (Ruohomaki, 1999; Doeringer and Terkla, 1995). Petty Harbour Petty Harbour is situated on the east coast of Newfoundland's Avalon Peninsula, fifteen kilometers from the city of St. John's. It sits in a small rugged, slightly sheltered inlet with nothing but the Atlantic Ocean between it and Europe. It is also located in what was one of the most prolific fishing areas of Newfoundland. The population of the community has remained relatively stable for the past several decades with approximately 915 people living there. The economic mainstay of the community since it was established in the late 1600's was its seasonal inshore Northern cod (Gadus morhua) fishery. Northern cod refers to the cod stocks that are found in Northwest Atlantic Fishery Organization (NAFO) divisions 2J, 3K, and 3L (Hutchings, 1999). The fishers of Petty Harbour are considered to be inshore fishers. Inshore fishing refers to low impact, land based, fixed gear technologies, in comparison to the offshore fishery which involves industrial mobile fleets such as otter trawls (Lilly et al, 1999). In 1992, a moratorium on the Northern cod fishery was implemented, leaving approximately 40,000 fishers and plant workers unemployed in Newfoundland (Martin, 1998); approximately 300 of these people were employed in fishery related activities in the community of Petty Harbour (Clarke, 2003). 47 Figure 4:1 Petty Harbour, January, 2006 The above photograph was taken from a hillside that looks down into the Harbour, and out to sea. The right side of the picture is the known as the south side and was settled by Protestants; the left side is the north side which was settled by Catholics, To this day there are still two churches in the community, one on either side of the Harbour serving the two different congregations. Historically the segregation of the community extended well beyond religion with each side of the community having its own school, and fish plants. Intermarriage was frowned down upon until quite recently. The bridge in the middle of the picture represents the dividing point and after it was re-built in the 1960s, it became the scene of many 'fist of cuffs' between youth from the north and south sides. It was noted in one interview that there was always a strong division in the Harbour along religious lines but fishers would lend a hand to each other when in trouble. "I don't know what it is that bound them together, the Catholics and Protestants were always at each other but they lost their religion on the water" (Petty Harbour Fisher) 48 The religious divisions date back several hundred years to the time when the fishery was being fought over by French and English. Many of Newfoundland's fishing communities resolved the conflict by spatial and institutional segregation. This meant that communities tended to have two schools, two churches, and designated living areas, generally on opposite sides of a Harbour. Apart from the religious divisions, Petty Harbour is a homogeneous community with only two declared religious dominations, no visible minorities, and all persons being born in Canada (Statistics Canada Census, 2001). There has always been noticeable gender segregation in the work place, with fishers being predominately male and women making up approximately 70 per cent of the work force in the fish plants (Rowe, 1991). There were some changes in the 1980s after a successful Supreme Court challenge struck legislation that prevented earnings in a spouse's fishing enterprise from being insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. By the mid 1980s there were approximately nine women fishing with their spouses. There has been a strong reliance on the fishery since the community was formally established in the 1670s with fishing boats, gear, fishing rights, and local knowledge (LK) being passed down intergenerationally from father to son. The extended family tended to participate in the fishery on an informal basis with children cutting cod tongues or joining in on the weekends hauling traps or handlining. The average age that the participants in my study started fishing was sixteen years old which meant that very few people hadcompleted high school. There has been a strong culture around the fishery with people engaging in activities and rituals that are not unlike those found in some indigenous communities. Examples of this are the annual blessing of the boats which took place every spring prior to the commencement of the fishery. The priest would make his way down to the wharf, sprinkle holy water on the boats, and then families would take the boat out for a spin, this being one of the few times women and children would fill the boats. Many of the older fishers were quite superstitious about having females in the boat. Another example was the annual donation of one day's catch to the church. Conflict resolution on the water, for instance when berths were in dispute, were inevitably settled by an agreed upon arbitrator who was always one of the older retired fishers. It was a common sight during trap setting season to see retired fishers in their 80s going out to sea to resolve a dispute over where a trap should be set. The retired fisher would be taken on board, given a place of honor up in the bow, and the boats would proceed to the area of dispute. This was an annual event as fishers would often 49 argue over the placement of their grapnels (trap anchors), especially for the prime berths, the number one draws as they were called. The predominant form of fishing in Petty Harbour up until the moratorium of 1992 involved the use of two passive gears types: the cod trap and handlines. Cod traps are large stationary floating square twine traps, generally speaking about 15 metres deep with perimeters of about 100 metres. These traps are heavily anchored near shore and have a 90 metre leader which runs into the shoreline: when cod follows its food source to shore, it encounters the leader, and then is re-directed towards the mouth of the trap. All traps have a bottom and in recent years some fishers employed what is known as the Japanese cod trap which has a twine lid on it to prevent fish loss during a strong tide. Initially, many Newfoundland communities were opposed to the introduction of cod traps; however, they were eventually widely accepted and used in the land-based fishery of most outport fishing communities. Handlining, otherwise known as the 'hook and line' fishery, refers to fish being caught one at a time with a baited hook and line. The community is unusual in that it has had a protected fishing area for well over a century, with the exception of a three year period in the early 1960's. The protected area legislation can be traced back to 1895, and it stated that in certain waters of Newfoundland no gear other than hook-and-line could be used for the purpose of catching cod (Section 49, 50 of the Fisheries Board Act, 1895, respecting the Department of Fisheries, British Rule). In 1960, the Government of Canada removed the historical protection, leaving the area open to previously unheard of exploitation from gears types such as longlines and gillnets. Petty Harbour fishers engaged in a lengthy battle with the Federal Government and were eventually successful in having the protective area legislation re-instated. The following information stems from my personal experience as a resident fisher of the community. The cod migrated on an annual basis to the shores of the community, following a small fish called capelin (Mallotus villosus). Prior to the Northern Cod moratorium of 1992, one would generally start handlining in late May, and cod traps were usually set early to mid-June. Traps came out of the water at the latest by the end of August as the catches would be minimal and the twine tended to become overgrown with 'slub', the Newfoundland term for organisms that colonize on nets and twine. Winter storms usually set in around the beginning of November and cod would be too scarce by 50 this time for handlining to be viable therefore boats would be pulled ashore. Fishers owned relatively small boats, generally 6 to 10 metres in length with carrying capacities of anywhere from 1000 to 20,000 kilograms. An average catch from handlining would be around 500 kilograms while traps would usually produce between 1000 to 5,000 kilograms both morning and evening, sometimes more. Communities on either side of Petty Harbour did not have a protected fishing area and they employed a variety of gear types including longlines, gillnets, and trawls. Petty Harbour has relied heavily on exploitation of the cod fishery; however, salmon and lobster licences supplemented fishing incomes as did other less lucrative species such as herring, lump roe, capelin, and squid. The following table provides an idea of how diversified the inshore fishery of Petty Harbour was. These numbers are taken from question 53 (Appendix 1) which asks: Please check off all of the licences you held prior to the 1992 moratorium. Table 4:1 Species Licences Held Species Fishers with this Licence Percentage of Participants Cod pail-time 7 21.% Cod full-time 26 79 % Salmon 14 42 % Lobster 15 46 % Capelin 17 52 % Squid 24 73 % Herring 18 55 % Lump Roe 11 33 % Seal 19 56 % In spite of the fact that the Newfoundland fishery has been plagued with cycles of instability both in the market and in fish catches (Candow, 1997) cod remained the economic backbone of many fishing communities in Newfoundland until 1992. Like many coastal communities throughout the world, Petty Harbour depended on natural migratory cycles to produce their near shore fishery (Silk, 2001). The migratory patterns of 51 Canada's east coast cod and capelin stocks from the offshore to the inshore are an example of this. Severe exploitation of fish stocks has led to a situation where these natural cycles no longer produce viable fisheries for coastal communities. The community's fishery has been under siege for decades by an increasingly aggressive offshore interceptor industrial fishery. Throughout its history of fishing, Petty Harbour has been exposed to the pressures of exploitation and has exhibited ongoing responses both of adaptation and resilience, as well as resistance to external resource extraction (Candow, 1997; Martin et al, 1996). The recent patterns of exploitation are not completely new; however, what is different about today's fishery is the intensification of effort, the highly sophisticated technologies that are employed, and the scale of economy that drives the industry (Martin, 1998; Haedrich et al, 2000; Silk, 2001). As of today, there is still no cod fishery in the community and the numbers of people involved in the fishery have decreased by well over 50% (Tom Best, Chair of the Fishermen's Committee, personal communication). In the past, when Newfoundland coastal fishing communities had a small degree of control over their fish resources there were many local management schemes designed both to designate fishing berths (therefore addressing distribution of resource), and limit gear types (Silk, 2003; Martin et al, 1996). The legislated authority of local fishermen's committees could be found in the Newfoundland Fisheries Regulations P.C. 1960-713, Sections 54, 55, and 56. Prior to the introduction of modern technologies, people relied exclusively on local indigenous knowledge to exploit the fishery, a way of fishing that continued well into the 1980s. It was difficult to enter the community as an outside fisher because knowledge of the local fishery was community specific. Resident fishers had access to intergenerational knowledge on the specific migratory and breeding cycles of fish, as well as the fishing grounds, and the influences of weather and tides. The historical patterns of fish exploitation and resource management seen in Petty Harbour have several common elements with traditional indigenous fisheries throughout the world. Many indigenous cultures had sophisticated methods of resource management that were designed to ensure localized sustainability of resource, something that modern management regimes have had less success with. Rules around access were, and still are, quite different in indigenous cultures compared to the extensive privatization that can be witnessed today. The common elements include the use of lower impact technologies, co-operative arrangements for exploitation of common 52 property, incorporation of spiritual beliefs, and occupational pluralism (Swezey and Heizer, 1977; Johannes, 1981; Langdon, 2001; Griffith and Pizzini, 2002). Examples of this are the Tlingit of Northern British Columbia and the Karuk of California, who devised technologies that incorporated many of the principles found in modern management regimes. The Tlingit fishery engaged in what Steve Langdon (2001) calls 'tidal pulse fishing', a style of fishing that caught fish on the ebb tide in weirs that were built in shallow waters at the mouths of rivers. The Karuk of Northern California used a somewhat similar technology, constructing weirs and dams that would intercept the salmon run as it headed up river to the spawning grounds (Swezey and Heizer, 1977). The result was a built in conservation component that allowed fish to continue up the river to both feed other communities and reproduce. This type of selective fishing limited pressure on the resource by as fish could only be caught during a few hours out of each day, thus assuring that reproductive requirements were met. Similar attributes could be found in the Petty Harbour fishery which was land-based, low-impact, seasonal with no track and catch ability which meant the fish had reproductive respite once they moved into deeper waters in the fall and winter. Indigenous communities have a lengthy history of sharing, and cooperative behaviours that include equal distribution of resources. Examples of this are ceremonies such as potlatch and situations where chiefs are responsible to ensure the whole tribe is well fed. The incorporation of spiritual beliefs and respect for the resource being taken is a notable characteristic of most indigenous fisheries, both past and present, is (Johannes, 1981; Bess, 2000; Griffith and Pizzini, 2002). The Indians of the Northwest Coast believed that all living things had a conscious spirit and that if taboos were broken or disrespect was shown, there would be a scarcity (Stewart, 1977: 161). Many of their hooks and lures had carvings of different sacred symbols such as the Raven or Shamans to help lure the fish and show respect. The Maori of New Zealand believe that everything is alive, and that nature and human society are indistinguishable (Bess, 2000: 3). The natural world has mauri, (life force), and this is not to be disturbed. Humans are considered to have a higher order of mauri, (mauri-ora) which makes them responsible to protect other living things. These beliefs combined with complex social rules and obligations, led to management practices which were designed to ensure long term survival of resources (Bess, 2000). Petty Harbour has its own particular spiritual belief system that could be witnessed through annual ceremonies that involved the blessing of 53 the boats in the spring and the annual one day dedication of all pay earned to the church. A prominent feature of indigenous cultures is occupational pluralism, which serves a two-fold purpose (Griffiths and Pizzini, 2002). People are able to exploit resources at a time when the catch per unit effort is worthwhile, and then move into a new activity when fishing is no longer viable. In the case of fisheries, this means that the resource will always have a recovery period. The Beaver Indians of Northern Canada are an example of people whose year is separated into four different areas of economic activity based on the natural cycles of hunting and fishing (Brody, 1981). Many coastal communities have a history of similar types of cycles, and in some cases, of combining wage labour with subsistence fishing (Griffiths and Pizzini, 2002). This approach of multiple livelihoods represents a creative way to supply both food and cash to families while maintaining cultural heritage. It is also a style of fishing that provides built in relief for the fish ecosystem. This model of fishing however, has received much criticism from state managers who favor industrial fisheries that can fish year round over seasonal fisheries that rely on alternatives such as social safety nets or other types of employment (Kirby, 1983). The concerns of Petty Harbour fishers over protection of what they viewed as their resource, the migrating cod, has been reflected in many well documented occasions. One example of this was an intensive, three year lobby in the early 1960s, to have the Federal Government re-instate the protected area legislation that was struck from the law in 1961 with no consultation with the community. On July 9 th , 1964 the Fisheries Act of Canada was amended by an Order in Council P.C.1964-1015, and a new regulation, SOR/64-254 came into effect banning the use of gillnets for the purpose of catching Northern Cod in the recognized fishing area of Petty Harbour. In 1985 this legislation was restated in Section 8 of Canada's Fisheries Act, SOR/86-21, Respecting the Management and Allocation of Fishery Resources in Atlantic Canada. Another example of Petty Harbour's protectionism was an effort on behalf of several of the local fishers to establish an inshore union as it was felt that the Fish, Food, and Allied Workers union (FFAW) did not fairly represent the concerns of the inshore and that its policies favoured the offshore fishery. Fishers from Petty Harbour were also members of the Newfoundland Inshore Fishers Association (NIFA) which in 1989 54 initiated a court action against the Federal Government requesting an environmental impact assessment of the Northern cod and also seeking an injunction to stop offshore draggers from fishing during the known spawning season (Steele et al, 1992; Bell, 1998). Petty Harbour provides a unique opportunity for study both from a natural science and a sociological perspective. It has been a gear specific protected area since the 1800's with a fishery that appeared to be on a sustainable trajectory over time. This arguably makes it an ideal location to observe the recovery of its cod stock, particularly if the protected area was extended to include the known migratory routes of the cod. It has maintained a low impact, community based inshore fishery for over three centuries, one that managed until quite recently to resist the forces of modernization. It has now lost access to its historical cod fishery due to the industrial fishery that intercepted stocks migrating to the coasts of the Avalon Peninsula. The community is susceptible to both national and international exploitation due to its physical location and historical dependence on highly mobile fish stocks that navigate both within and outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It is important to note that an offshore fishery has existed since the 1400's however the impact of modern industrial technologies combined with the capital interests that direct them is such that no natural resource appears to be able to sustain the assault. In order to better understand what led up to the 1992 closure of the cod fishery, one must examine the modernization of the fishery. The Emergence of Modern Industrial Fisheries The defining characteristics of modern fisheries are privatization, concentration of wealth, habitat degradation and loss of livelihood. The post World War II years saw a dramatic change in attitudes towards resource management and coinciding with this was an unchallenged increase in the size and capabilities of harvesting technologies (Newell, 1993). The intent of the new industrial technologies was to provide better access to unexploited fish stocks on a year round basis (Kodera, 1971). The expansion of industrial fleets, the closure of the commons by states, and the increasing trend towards privatization of fish resources has seriously impacted the health of wild fish stocks, and radically altered the ability of small scale coastal fishers to earn a living. Modernization processes that lead to resource extraction by corporate interests arguably represent the greatest obstacle to overcoming environmental degradation and 55 community sustainability (Marchak, 1988). There is a general unwillingness both by states and the corporate world to accept blame for the way that resources have been mismanaged (Beck, 1992: 33). In analyzing the modernization of the Canadian fishery, Miriam Wright (2000) states that politicians and fishery planners promoted a specific ideology of development, one that was part of a historical trend of large scale industrial development and privatization of resource. According to Wright, the dichotomy of 'traditional versus modern' became central to modernization theory (Wright, 2000). In the case of the Newfoundland fishery, throughout the 1930's-1960's there were major shifts both in fish production and in the offshore fleets that extracted the resource (Ommer, 1988; Sinclair, 1988; Wright, 1992). Salt bulk fish production was replaced by fresh frozen product in an effort to access a wider market and make Newfoundland fish globally competitive (Sinclair, 1988). Coinciding with this was the event of the factory freezer trawler that could catch and process its fish at sea (Wright, 2000). When Newfoundland joined Canada, the Federal government assumed jurisdiction over the fishery, and private capital combined with new technological advancements to create a modern fishery (Wright, 2000). Prior to the Second World War, biological theories and models had dominated fisheries management in Canada; however the 1950's saw the introduction of economic theory to fisheries management. Several economists were appointed to key positions in the fisheries department at this time and the work of one highly influential economist, Scott Gordon, became instrumental in shaping fisheries policy through the introduction of common property theory to fisheries management (Gordon, 1954; Marchak, 1988; Wright, 2000). The introduction of common property theory to fisheries planning provided the rationale for closure of the commons, although according to Peter Sinclair (1998) the majority of Newfoundland communities continued to self-regulate and determine access rules to their own local resources until the mid to late 1970's. While there is an element of truth to this statement, there were in fact many federal regulations in place to regulate Newfoundland fisheries, many of which pre-existed under British rule and were brought into confederation in 1949 under the Terms of the Union with Canada (Silk, 2003). However, it appears that prior to the declaration of the EEZ, the federal government did not necessarily view the fishery as a particularly viable or profitable industry. The fishery was plagued with cycles of poor catches and poor market demand, and several commissions in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to resolve the fish problem (Wright, 56 2000). Ultimately it was determined that the establishment of a regular, year round supply of fresh frozen fish designed to accommodate the demands of a United States market, would resolve the problem. As a result of this, large amounts of capital and government support went into creating a powerful offshore industrial fleet, one that was virtually unregulated (Finlayson, 1994). Peter Sinclair (1988) in his account of how the state enclosed the commons paints a picture of repeating patterns: declining catches both in the inshore and offshore fishery, increased exploitation by foreign fleets, and corporate government bailouts. The privatization schemes, the infusion of money by government to Canada's offshore fleet, and the shift of allocation from the inshore to the offshore over time frame all suggest that the state was acting on behalf of corporate interests (Sinclair, 1988). According to Sinclair (1988) the state's position on the fishery appeared to be one of contradictions. When Romeo LeBlanc was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, a new fisheries program was submitted to the government, one which recognized and accepted that community survival depended on a sound fishery. In spite of this, the economic theory directing the report's solution was that of open access theory. In the years following this report, intervention, regulation, and privatization through limited licencing schemes and quotas were introduced, with the hope of curbing the problems. These measures coincided with the declaration of the Canada's EEZ, at which time the over-fishing by foreign fleets was replaced by Canada's new industrial offshore fishing fleet (Sinclair, 1988). Canadian policy was strongly influenced by one report in particular, the Task Force Report on Atlantic Fisheries (Kirby, 1983), referred to most commonly as the Kirby Report. This report advised that quasi-property rights for the east coast trawler fleet would lead to a reduction in over capitalization (O'Boyle, 1993: 426). The theory was based on the notion that corporations are rational and that they would stop fishing once it was no longer economically viable, thus preserving the stock. There were several other reports commissioned in this time frame whose findings recognized the rights of communities with historical attachment to have priority access to regenerated cod stocks. As well, shared responsibility and co-management were identified as principles that should be incorporated into management schemes (Report, 1993: 64). The Kirby Report (1983), of which many recommendations were implemented by the Federal government, actually emphasized the opposite, that inshore fishers were a drain on the economy particularly in terms of their usage of Unemployment Insurance (Kirby Report, 57 1983; Sinclair, 1988). In contrast to this, the offshore dragger fishery fit the model of economic efficiency with a fishery that averaged 42-48 weeks per year, and average annual incomes that were considerably higher than inshore fishers. Based on recommendations from the Kirby Report, in 1985, the first factory freezer trawler licence was issued to National Sea, a company that was granted millions of dollars of debt relief through a 'restructuring' of Atlantic Canada's fishery, another recommendation of the Kirby Task Force. This marked an important change as it reflected an erosion of Newfoundland's influence over the fishery (Sinclair, 1988). The implementation of Kirby's recommendations resulted in the development of a Canadian fleet with modern track and catch capabilities that ultimately contributed to the destruction of the cod stocks (Steele et al, 1992). Coinciding with these shifts in state policy was a dramatic increase in the use of high impact harvesting technologies. While there is much that has been written on the subject of fisheries, and the fact that industrial fleets have contributed to the decline of fish stocks globally, the rise of industrial technologies and their social and cultural embeddedness has not been adequately addressed. Technology tends to be discussed in terms of modification of gear types for the protection of benthic environments or non- target species (Garcia, 1996; Santos et al, 1997; Hovard and Lassan, 2000; Kaiser et al, 2002Morgan and Chuenpagdee, 2003) rather than acknowledging the social impacts on communities with historical attachment. It was identified as early as the 1800's by Newfoundland fishers that dragger technologies had the ability to decimate stocks (Silk, 1994; Martin, 1996; Candow, 1997; Cadigan, 2003) In their study of the rural Newfoundland fishery, Neis et al (1999: 228) describe the classic shift in technology that has accompanied the modernization process across continents. They note the increased size in vessels, higher horsepower, greater fish-finding capacity through modern technologies such as sonar, and the global pattern of targeting high-density populations. There was apparently little consideration given at this time to the potential for modern technologies combined with aggressive market pressures to fish stocks to the brink of extinction. It is now widely accepted that this capability exists in modern industrial fleets, and has in fact been exercised in full in all oceans of the world. Another highly detrimental impact of fish extraction by mobile track and catch technologies is the fact that they intercept fish that are following migratory routes to shore. The existence of cod spawning migratory highways was established years ago by 58 DFO scientist George Rose (1993). The high seas interception of migrating fish stocks suggests that discussions of destroyed stocks will require more than a cursory review of technological impacts. There was extensive fishing of the Northern cod spawning biomass by Canadian mid-water and bottom trawlers throughout the 1980s, with no closed season or protective season for spawning aggregations. The offshore fishery was a year round bonanza, and unlike other species such as lobster, capelin, salmon, lumpfish, and herring fish that all had open and closed seasons, there were no protective measures for the cod. The technologies used not only impact targeted species; they serious impact non-targeted species through incidental by-catch (Pitcher and Chuenpagdee, 1996). Addressing these issues should be mandated in order to facilitate a more comprehensive dialogue on the impacts of modern fishing technologies. The role that the interception and capture of migrating and spawning stocks has played in fisheries degradation does not garner enough attention in fisheries management. Another critical change to state management was the involvement of state employed scientists who were charged with producing predictions on stock assessments. Fisheries science, however, is not an exact science and the improvement of models over time has done little to offset the uncertainty in fisheries management (Rose, 1997). The scientific community tends to work on the premise that nature behaves in a predictable manner and that there can be accuracy in fisheries management (Rose, 1997; Steele et al, 1992; Constanza et al., 1997; Walters, 1998; O'Boyle, 1993). The problems facing the scientific community responsible for providing advice on fish management is that while stocks and population distribution dynamics are central to the ecology and management of fish, they are poorly understood (Rose, 1997). DFO scientists were responsible for providing advice on feasible yearly allocations of 'total allowable catch', otherwise referred to as TAC (Finlayson, 1994). According to some fisheries scientists, the formula used by DFO scientists to come up with the annual TAC was a complicated and uncertain affair (Steel et al, 1992). The anticipated recruitment of fish in any given year would dictate what the TAC was going to be approximately four years later. It has now been identified that there was an overly optimistic assessment of the 1986-87 year classes wherein the spawning biomass was assumed to be 1.5 times stronger than any year class since 1977 when the EEZ was declared (Steele and Anderson, 1997). In 1990, the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee (CAFSAC) continued to support fishing at the same rate, not acknowledging any problem with their 59 assessment in spite of growing concerns, particularly stemming from the inshore fishing sector, that all was not well with the northern cod (Finlayson, 1994; Steele and Anderson, 1997; Wright, 2000). This advice in hindsight was disastrous: the two weak year classes, 1986-87, were not protected from exploitation and by the time the 1992 moratorium was declared it was too late to protect the Northern cod stock. In an article on the Newfoundland fishery, fisheries scientist Richard Haedrich and sociologist Lawrence Hamilton (2000) discuss the uncertainty that exists in the fisheries management models used by DFO. In order to point out how the uncertainty evolves in fisheries science, they create four different scenarios that might lead to recovery of the Northern cod. The authors outline the social consequences of the loss of livelihood from fishing, and note that Newfoundland is the only Canadian province with a declining population. They also note the history of 1000 outport communities with a strong historical dependency on fishing, but also involvement with occupational pluralism, a common pattern to be found in fishing communities throughout the world. They pick an overly optimistic biomass figure of 50,000 metric tons as a basis for their modelling in spite of the fact that DFO surveys suggested that spawning biomass in 1992 was down to only 21,000 metric tons, and three years later had declined to a paltry 13,000 tons. They discuss known problems with sampling and point out that in a study of theirs on the status of Newfoundland's cod fishery, they could not factor in environmental factors, predator-prey relationships, and interspecies interactions into their model. They identify the fact that the uncertainty in their study begins with data base "guestimates" and carries right on through to the modelling. They note then how the research becomes factual, through a process of being peer reviewed by a well established science journal, published, and then cited extensively, in spite of the uncertainties described by the scientist themselves in the original research. In reviewing the demise of the Northern cod, Steele and Anderson (1997) reflect on two reasons for the poor estimates: one is that recruitment represents a poor method of measurement and that a more accurate way to make projections on stocks would be to base it on realized fish catch. The other possibility they suggest is that the estimates may have been relatively accurate, but that undersized juveniles did not make it to recruitment due to anthropogenic causes such as the practice of discarding undersized fish that are of no value. While it has been noted there is a lack of hard evidence for high-grading, there is no shortage of anecdotal evidence from many different sources to 60 suggest that this may well have been a contributing factor (Steele and Anderson, 1997; Silvestre and Pauly, 1997). The habit of high-grading is one of the unfortunate side effects of quota system privatization because once there is a restriction on landings, there is then an incentive to dump everything but the fish that commands the highest price (Pauly et al, 1998; Copes, 1999). George Rose (1997), a DFO scientist, points out the failure of fisheries science and scientific institutions to provide adequate information on fish stocks to those responsible for fisheries management. He notes that a central theme in current critiques of fisheries science is the fact that quantitative research methods are based on the belief of statistical supremacy and a faith in the certainty of science. As a result of this, the broader issues of ocean ecosystem management have been ignored. While Rose (1997) believes that quantitative methods and population models have been, and should remain the cornerstones of fisheries science, he states that scientists need to get out in the field, touch base with the reality of nature and the physical environment they are studying in order to approach the discipline with a more holistic knowledge, one that will incorporate common sense. Rose (1997) reviews the ongoing, polarized debate in science about the impacts of fishing versus environmental factors on declining stocks. For several years prior to the 1992 moratorium in Newfoundland, scientists blamed cold water patterns and the voracious appetites of seals as the leading cause in the decline of the Northern Cod, ignoring the impact of the offshore interceptor dragger fishery (Rose, 1997; see Lilly et al, 1999 for an analysis of seal predation on cod). It is now well established in the literature that fishing technologies have been the key factor in destroying the cod stocks (Steele et al, 1992; Safina, 1995; Haedrich and Hamilton, 2000). Rose (1997) notes that attributing cause and effect of environmental and fishing impacts is impossible because the data is flawed for several reasons. The most commonly cited factors that are considered to skew fisheries data are quota busting, high-grading, and illegal unreported catch (Steele et al, 1997; Rose, 1997). He suggests that `no take zones' (otherwise known as marine protected areas, MPAs) would allow for comprehensive, multidisciplinary research that could possibly lead to a better understanding of the different impacts on fisheries (Rose, 1997). Stressing again that risk and uncertainty are bound to be present in fisheries management, he suggests that diagnostic indices be based on simpler forms of monitoring, assessment and management. Rose (1997) also 61 suggests that instead of setting targets based on complex formulas, that fishery science could look at historical landings adjusted to the indices of current stock state. This proposal is in keeping with the types of diagnostic tools that Petty Harbour fishers use and in fact, is what enabled them to recognize the decline in their cod stocks well before DFO was able to grasp the severity of the situation. Rose (1997) poses the question: can simple integrative approaches be used in fisheries management instead of complex modeling that is both difficult to decipher, and has failed in terms of understanding the status of stocks? The Northern cod stock remains in a precarious state today, and the fishery has not been opened to inshore fishers. It has been suggested that there is no room for any type of cod fishing at this time if the stock is to recover, and that when it does, the historical pressures of the 1980s cannot be resumed (Haedrich et al, 2000). The implications of this for coastal communities with lengthy historical attachment to fish resources are severe. The following section of this thesis examines the socio-economics impacts of destroyed fisheries on coastal fishing communities. The Socio-economic Impacts of Destroyed Fisheries on Coastal Communities Single resource dependent communities have often been able to sustain themselves in the past but in recent times outside forces have interfered with this ability through the extraction of natural resources. Historically many community based resource extraction economies were able to either sustain in a state of equilibrium and stability, or exhibit adaptivity and resilience to change (Hollings et al, 2000; Berkes et al, 2003). It is has been suggested by many that the intensification of industrial technologies and the extractive processes that exist in modern industrial complexes cannot be sustained (Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994; Diegues, 1998; Jacobsen, 2000). Much of the literature on single resource dependent communities reflects the fact that coastal fishing communities are unable to withstand and survive the assault by modern extractive technologies, and have now lost access to viable economies that have sustained them, in some case for hundreds of years (Silk, 2001). In a discussion noting that scientists have not been able to resolve problems with world fisheries, Fikret Berkes (1987) argues that the "bio-economic paradigm needs to incorporate political and social considerations" (88). Small scale fishers until quite 62 recently were contributing one half of the world's fish, caught by more efficient, less polluting, technologies and providing more jobs per unit of investment (Berkes, 1987). The world's historical abundance of fish has supported small scale fishers for centuries (Silvestre and Pauly, 1997). Arguably one of the main differences between many of the indigenous fisheries and today's industrial fishery is the sophisticated "track and catch" capability that now exists (Harris, 1990). The introduction of new technologies with high capabilities such as sonar, radar, and satellite, and large factory freezer draggers, has opened the world's oceans to unprecedented exploitation (De Groot, 1984; Junquera et al, 1992; Fairlie et al, 1995; De Alessi, 1997). Coinciding with this, state policies have been formulated that favor industrial year round fisheries over seasonal fisheries, this in the name of economic efficiency (Sinclair, 1988; Wright, 2000). The model of economics that 20 th century development has been based on has fueled the process of globalization, a trend that according to James Goldsmith (1996) is causing economic impoverishment of communities worldwide, and likewise the widespread destruction of natural ecosystems. In many cases the social fabric of urban and rural communities has been severely damaged by global economic policies. Many coastal communities, whose historical reliance on seasonal fisheries depended on natural species fluctuations and cycles, are no longer able to gain a livelihood from fishing. The declaration of the EEZ in 1977 provided Canada with a unique opportunity to offer protection to communities such as Petty harbour because at this point foreign fishing was curtailed (Finlayson, 1994). Unfortunately the state chose to create two multinational companies and the foreign fishing effort was replaced by the Canadian dragger fleet which is now credited with being a key player in the destruction of the Northern cod (Steele et al, 1997). DFO continued to licence both foreign and Canadian fleets allowing them to fish species that were described as underutilized due to their low monetary value. This ultimately contributed to undermining the ecosystem and impacting migratory patterns of all fishes including squid, herring, mackerel, cod, and capelin. It is well established today that single species stock assessment has failed for many reasons (Steele et al, 1992; Walters, 1998), one of the main ones being that it neglects to factor in ecosystem dynamics and the impacts of imbalance in food chains and trophic levels (Pauly et al, 1998; Essington et al, 2006). A review of fisheries modernization would not be complete without examining the impacts of the erosion of local knowledge in rural communities with historical resource 63 dependency. Erosion of traditional knowledge means that not only is the local knowledge of the fishery undermined and eventually lost, it represents a loss of culture and values (Tisdale, 1993). There is a growing body of literature that suggests the local knowledge (LK) of resources users, also referred to as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), has a valuable contribution to make towards management of fish stocks (Neis et al, 1999). TEK provides a wealth of rich, community specific knowledge about the environment and the state of natural resources, knowledge that could either compliment science, or perhaps at times replace it as the dominant source of information (Neis et al, 1999). If one thinks back to the case of the northern cod, had local knowledge of inshore fishers been accepted, fishing quotas would have been decreased, offshore fishing of spawning cod would have ceased, and perhaps there would still be a viable cod fishery on Newfoundland's east coast. However, there is still reluctance on the part of DFO fisheries management to accept or find credibility in TEK. One of the problems that scientists have with TEK is that it is viewed as culturally specific knowledge that pertains more to a way of life, versus discrete and quantifiable pieces of information that have broad scientific application (Paul Nadasdy, 1999). Another criticism of TEK is that while it may have contained validity at one point in time, the drastic changes that have occurred to ecosystems potentially undermine its credibility in today's world (Nadasdy, 1999). I would argue that this fact does not justify ignoring TEK; if extraction and exploitation were dramatically curbed and then if traditional systems of knowledge joined forces with western science there would in all probability be a positive outcome. This train of thought leads back to the importance of social capital as a community strength that can be commandeered and put to use towards reversing the pressures of external extraction and restoration of historical management rituals and processes. Research has confirmed that Newfoundland fishing people, like many other indigenous cultures throughout the world, draw conclusions from a wide range of complex data that leads to a detailed understanding of their fishery (Neis et al, 1999). This includes understandings of the interrelationships between tides, winds, water temperatures, fish habitat and migratory patterns, annual and seasonal patterns of feeding locations, consumption habits, and fluctuations in feeding patterns (Neis et al, 1999). In a study on Newfoundland fishers' traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), Neis et al (1999) reflect on the fact that both traditional ecological knowledge and science represent knowledge 64 frameworks that derive from "the ecological, technological and social contexts in which they are embedded" (Neis et al, 1999: 230). They suggest ways that TEK could be useful to help define management goals in fisheries, examples being that local fishers could help determine appropriate allocations and also help monitor changes in fishing behaviour. They note that there are discrepancies between fishers and DFO in the way they classify cod. As an example, they cite the fact that while DFO classified all cod in the areas 2J3K3I as Northern cod, one group of Trinity Bay fishers had nine different names for the northern cod based on their distinctly different qualities and physical attributes (Neis et al, 1999). A similar discrepancy exists between DFO knowledge and Petty Harbour fishers. All cod that migrates through the community is referred to as Northern cod by DFO. It has been understood down through the generations that there were two different stocks of cod that came through Petty Harbour and many 'old timers' talked about the two different fish, and the way you could tell them was through the coloring, the size, and the seasonal migratory patterns. Fishers that I interviewed during my field research unanimously agreed that their indigenous knowledge was being lost and they cited two reasons for this: not being able to enter the fishery, therefore the younger generation is not getting an opportunity to learn from the older fishers, and the introduction of new technologies such as GPS. The dependency on new electronic technologies means that the older methods of using marks to locate specific fishing grounds are lost. Local knowledge involves more than the visual marks and locating grounds: in a fishing dependent community like Petty Harbour it involves a sophisticated knowledge of seasonal cycles, and the implications of them for the various fisheries. Several fishers in their interviews mentioned the importance of 'knowing' the fish patterns year after year. This issue came to the forefront with one of the questions in my oral interviews that asked: where do you see the crab fishery five years from now? The general sentiment was that there is not enough local history with the fishery to make an educated guess: "we don't know, how could we know, I am only at it less than 10 years" (Petty Harbour fisher) This response is striking given that most people in our culture with a decade of experience on a job would consider themseves to be quite knowledgeable. In the case of Petty Harbour crab fishers, most of who have been fishing for well over 30 years, it is 65 notable that they did not feel confident to make even so much as a guess. This highlights the fact that people recognize that 'knowing' fish, refers to having the intergenrational knowledge of long term patterns of catch, migratory, seasonal and annual flucturations in species abundance. Petty Harbour is one of many communities affected by the processes of expansionism and extraction of resource that has occurred as a result of fisheries modernization. Historically, the community had one of the better known handlining grounds in Newfoundland (Martin, 1996; Clarke, 2003). Privatization of resource has resulted in extraction of the resource by external interests by intense technologies have presently deprived the community of its historical economic mainstay. At this time the restructuring of the fishery has led to noticeable divisions within the community due to the fact that there is presently a lucrative snow crab fishery that only core fishers are licenced to fish (Clarke, 2003). Fishers have been both marginalized within the fishery, and in many cases excluded from the fishery. Core criteria was introduced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in 1996 to reduce numbers by eliminating those fishers who were considered to be marginal or part-time (Clarke, 2003). In a discussion about extractive processes and their impacts on communities, Stephen Bunker (1984) examines how modes of production and extraction evolve and reshape socio-economic relations over time. Citing the case of the Amazon, he points out how capitalist ventures have uprooted and dramatically altered indigenous cultures through exploitation of the environment and the people. People were moved, communities destroyed, cultures and traditions destroyed, and environmental resources depleted to the point where communities lost the ability to be resilient (Bunker, 1984). The exploitation and depletion of valued animals and spices, and then later rubber, destroyed what was once, and should have remained a healthy and socially viable culture (Bunker, 1984). These patterns are not unlike those described in rural Newfoundland fishing communities where both Canadian and foreign fleets contributed to the depletion and ultimate undermining of a centuries old fishery in hundred's of communities. The crisis that has occurred in Newfoundland communities as a result of the cod fish closure is much more than an economic one (Tisdall, 1993). Newfoundland fishing communities have engaged in a cultural, social, and spiritual relationship with fish, forests, and other wildlife. This is a pattern that has been well documented for other 66 cultures throughout the world by many academics (Johannes, 1981; Bess, 2000). Once a natural resource is viewed as something to be exploited, it tends to become a state managed and corporately dominated marketable item, isolated and disembedded from a complex social-ecological-biological system. Anthony Giddens (1990) has used the term disembedded to reflect on the dramatic changes that have occurred as a result of modernization processes, and the way that social relations that are lifted out of local contexts of interaction. The concept has been employed by some academics to describe the social change that occurs when the external process of resource extraction leads to a crisis such as can be witnessed with the Newfoundland fishery (Sinclair et al, 1999). This seems appropriate to address what happens in a corporate model of natural resource extraction. In particular, this concept supports the thesis that stewardship of natural resources is more likely to occur in resource dependent communities where social relations are embedded, rather than in a profit driven industrial complex where the only hope for stewardship is that responsible action will be legislated, and then enforced. In spite of the major changes that have occurred in Newfoundland communities, it appears that many have engaged in an ongoing process of change that reflects resilience and adaptivity, (Candow, 1997; Wright, 2000). Many communities are anxious to secure what they refer to as their rights to fishing, and in some cases this means lobbying to prevent cod quotas from being allowed to leave the community in corporate hands, as can be seen in Harbour Breton at this time, (Winston Fiander, Shifting Gears Conference, NL, April 29, 2005). Other changes have been the introduction of a lucrative snow crab fishery. However this fishery, after a few short years, is starting to show evidence that fishers may be involved in fishing down the food chain. This concept refers to the idea that the different layers of the marine ecosystem are systematically fished out starting with the piscivorous stocks of higher trophic levels, and then moving down the food chain from vertebrates to invertebrates, eventually undermining the whole ecosystem (Pauly et al, 1998). As of today both quotas and the price paid for snow crab have been decreasing annually, and the fishery is now exhibiting signs of another marine species in decline. The fishers in Petty Harbour are already asking: what will they fish when the snow crab is gone, and will there ever be a cod fishery to return to? In the following chapter I present a descriptive analysis of the thesis data that reveals an unusual history of activism and protectionism over fish resources by Petty Harbour fishers. 67 CHAPTER FIVE: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS Petty Harbour fishers have an unusual history of activism, predominately in the area of protectionism of their fish resources. This activism has exhibited in many different ways. They have fought for and maintained over the decades a gear specific protected area, and on more than one occasion been obliged to lobby government or demonstrate for the right to maintain the protective legislation. In the 1980s the Newfoundland Inshore Fisher's Association (NIFA) brought a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada to have the offshore fishery closed and Petty Harbour fishers played a strong role with this organization. When Greenpeace became involved in the fisheries issues plaguing Newfoundland, they sold their boat the Rainbow Warrior to a Petty Harbour fisher for one dollar, hoping that the community would somehow be able to use the boat to demonstrate against the offshore fishery. When tensions arose within the fisher's union because of perceived conflict of interest between offshore and inshore interests, the effort to establish an exclusive inshore union was spearheaded by several prominent fishers of Petty Harbour. Petty Harbour had (and still does) one of only three fisher co-ops in Newfoundland and Labrador and this Co-op formed exchanges with different cooperatives from several countries of the world. Petty Harbour fishers were actively involved in the "Tools For Peace" exchange during the 1980s which saw fish gear, motors, plant supplies, and school supplies shipped to four fish cooperatives in Nicaragua when the American embargo was causing severe hardship to fishers in that country. Fishers from Newfoundland including one from the Petty Harbour Co-op went to Nicaragua on three different occasions to work with fishers in several small fishing co-operatives in the community of El Estiaro, Nicaragua. The Petty Harbour Co-op housed exchanges with people from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, Eritrea, and Indonesia, much of the time in partnership with organizations like Oxfam. This is an unusual history for a small fishing community in Newfoundland. These are many of the reasons that I was inspired to probe the question: why social factors contributed to such a high level of activism in Petty Harbour fishers? In this chapter, I introduce the descriptive data that I collected during my three months of field research. In particular, I present the findings for many of the indicators that I used to measure my variables in order to locate explanations for the activism. Taking direction 68 from the literature on social capital, I focused on the linkages between activism, and indicators such as structural social capital (networks), cognitive social capital, leadership, and sense of ownership in an effort to locate explanations to activism in Petty Harbour. Activism — the dependent variable It has been noted throughout this thesis that the relationship of activism to social capital is important. It has been argued by many that social capital is essential to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of rural communities, and that sustainable development will occur through collective activism which is an outcome of social capital (Dale, 2005; Onyx, 2005). Petty Harbour was a single resource dependent fishing community that struggled for over three hundred years to maintain its right of access to fishes that migrated annually to the community. The community throughout its history exercised community governance through several different processes. One of the ways it has done this is through complex rules and local self-governance schemes designed to control access, berths, time frames, and ensure co-operation of its fishing membership. Petty Harbour's high level of social capital, the documented history of activism, and likewise of community governance, makes it an appropriate case study to examine the relationship between social capital and activism. In order to create appropriate indicators for measuring activism, I drew on my first hand knowledge as a long term resident fisher of the community to try and locate meaningful measures. The importance of developing locally relevant indicators has been well established (den Otter and Beckley, 2002; Beckley et al, 2002; Krishna, 2002). What I knew from my years in the community is that there was a lengthy history of activism, particularly with respect to protecting fishing rights, but also with respect to maintaining a gear specific protected area, this dating back to the 1800s, possibly earlier. Fishermen's committees controlled who fished where and when, and with what gear types. Every spring there was a meeting during which a DFO representative would attend and the annual draw for trap berths would take place. There was also regular, ongoing interaction with local DFO fishery representatives, Fisheries Officers who would visit the communities regularly and take the local concerns back to DFO for discussion. The 1980s became a particularly volatile time as it was during this decade that the offshore effort increased dramatically, and the impacts of this were particularly severe for 69 the inshore fishery. During this time, fish patterns changed, fish arrived later, each year the fish decreased in size, and bait species such as squid and herring, started to disappear. Coinciding with this was the establishment of a capelin roe fishery which was in high demand on the Japanese market. Capelin were seined and caught by the 100's of 1000's of kilograms by the offshore fishery and this was the mainstay food source for cod, as well as the lure, so to speak, the fish that brought the cod ashore. Cod always migrates to the inshore following the capelin which spawns early each summer on sandy beaches. During the mid-1980's capelin stopped showing up in the communities that one could always rely on for their bait. Selling cod became more difficult because the plants that normally processed cod started buying capelin instead leaving cod fishers stranded with huge catches during what was already a glut season, unable to sell more than a few hundred kilos a day. Petty Harbour fishers responded to these pressures in many ways: they started their own fish co-op in order to take charge of sales, they demonstrated, they dumped their cod, they dumped one of the local plants capelin, they participated in a court challenge against the offshore fishery, and they tried to start an inshore fishers union. In order to create indicators that would measure activism in a locally meaningful context, I developed two questions. One of the questions allowed the participant to state what types of activities they thought constituted effective activism, and the other to establish what activities the participant has actually engaged in. I based the format on a similar question on a previous study conducted by Dr. David Tindall (2002); however, I reformulated the questions to be contextually relevant to the fishers of Petty Harbour. Question 11 (Appendix 1) asked people to provide their response in terms of agreement to several statements about activities that people perceived to be effective means of obtaining concessions or achieving goals. The options presented (see Table 5:1) were based on my knowledge of the types of activism that Petty Harbour fishers were well known for. I then posed a second question (Question 13, Appendix 1) that asked people to respond to whether they had engaged in eight different types of activism. The two questions are as follows: Question 11: Below are listed a variety of activities that people engage in order to obtain a concession from government or achieve a community goal. Please indicate your level of agreement on how effective the actions listed below are. 70 Question 13: The following list a series of activities that people engage in when they are trying to create social or political change. Please check either yes or no for the following questions. Table 5:1 shows the results for five matching statements from questions 11 and 13. The first column shows the activity, the second reflect the percentage of participants' agreement that the statement represents a form of effective activism, and the second column showing what activities they themselves have engaged in. Table 5:1 Comparing Attitudes Toward Activism to Involvement with Activism Activity^ Perceived Effectiveness Activism Engaged In of Activism Peaceful Demonstrations^ 94%^97% Letter Writing^ 84%^42% Meeting w/government officials^97%^73% Non-peaceful demonstrations^30%^64% Meeting with media^ 82%^73% As can be noted, Table 5:1 shows that four of the five activities listed are perceived as effective forms of activism. The results for the "non-peaceful demonstrations" question are interesting to note: while only 30 per cent state a non-peaceful demonstration to be effective, 64 per cent state they have been involved in one. Petty Harbour fishers have engaged in many high profile demonstrations, some of which were resolved by legal authorities. One of the more notable ones was the Minister of Fisheries' announcement of the fishery closure in July of 1992. Fishers from nearby communities including Petty Harbour were physically removed from the site by police after trying to break into the Newfoundland Hotel where a closed press conference was being held. The response to this question suggests that people feel that involvement with these types of 71 demonstrations has not brought about the desired change. The letter writing results are also of interest: 84 per cent agree that it is an effective form of lobbying yet only 42 per cent have actually engaged in a letter writing campaign. A possible explanation for this may be that participants have either a real or perceived shortcoming in written communication skills. The 1996 Statistics Canada Census shows that 45 per cent of males over the age of twenty-five years of age in Petty Harbour had less than a grade nine education. One of my questions asked 'at what age did you start fishing' and 49 per cent of the respondents were under the age of sixteen when they commenced fishing. When the moratorium shut the fishery down, a large percentage of the plant and fish workers who opted to participate in training initiatives, took Adult Basic Education (ABE) in order to get their high school certification. The oral interviews also shed light on what some Petty Harbour fishers think explains the activism in their community. One of the questions asked: what do you think explains the fact that historically Petty Harbour was a politically active community that provided protectionism towards its fish resources? One response that emerged in several of the interviews was the fact of Petty Harbour's geographic proximity to St. John's. The reasoning behind this was summed up simply in the following quotes: "If I got a problem today, I get on the phone, and if I can't get no satisfaction, well then, into the car and out to town, you go right in and ask to see someone" (Petty Harbour fisher) "It's location, close to St. John's, close to politicians and close to the media, anything happens, the media comes right to Petty Harbour" (Petty Harbour fisher) Several of the responses noted that Petty Harbour had strong lobbying powers based on the fact that they were close enough to St. John's to access politicians, and the media, but also educational tools such as how to access funding grants. Education was brought up as another explanation, the perception being that people have better access to alternative types of education, especially trades such as plumbing and electrician. Many of the fishers in Petty Harbour actually have back up trades that they would turn to during the winter months when there was no fishery, or during the summer when there was a poor fishery. The one other notable response to the question was that people had a valuable resource that they took pride in, a resource that had to be protected because 72 everybody's livelihood was dependent on it. "I think it's because the older fishermen, well, I wouldn't call it a close know bunch, but they had a pride in their fishery, they wanted to protect their community and they wanted to keep their fishery" (Petty Harbour fisher) In order to create a variable for activism which could be analysed in relationship to my other three variables, factor analysis was used to assess the eight items proposed in Question 13 (Appendix 1). Reliability analysis was also undertaken. The factor analysis yielded mixed results suggesting there was a general factor of activism and that perhaps the items could be combined to create two or three different dimensions of activism. The measures chosen to be indicators of activism have been used successfully in previous studies that involved larger samples (see Tindall, 2002). As noted already, in Question 11 (Appendix 1), participants had an opportunity to state whether they thought specific statements were representative of effective activism, and there was a high level of agreement with the choices offered (Table 5:1). Because the items appear to have both face validity and content validity, they were used to create a single measure of activism. Structural Social Capital: Networks There is consensus that social capital is comprised of available resources that are embedded in social structures and that measuring social capital needs to examine both its presence (structure) and how then how it is mobilized. Nan Lin (2001) has developed a network theory of social capital (the position generator) that focuses on how individuals through their social positions and ties are able to mobilize and access and benefit from these embedded resources. Lin (2001) developed the position generator theory to help explain how one's personal contacts within a hierarchy can be used to garner respect and recognition, and thus to advance one's interests. This evolved as an alternative explanation to the name generator theory that assumes social capital can be measured by strength or numbers of social ties to individuals. In order to develop indicators of social capital, I focused on networks and trust, drawing from the existing literature. To establish a measure of network ties, I relied on a previously used model that employed a matrix question designed to capture weak and strong ties to those in positions of authority (Tindall, 2002; Harshaw and Tindall, 2005). The options provided questioned whether the participant knew any of the following 73 people: a recognized community leader, a politician, a religious leader, an organizer of community events, a spokesperson for the community, someone working to better the community, and a member of a local board. The matrix question (question 29, Appendix 1) allowed me to measure the range of individual ties that included acquaintances (weak ties), good friends, and relatives (strong ties) that participants had to people with these profiles. A notable number of participants indicated that they were either good friends with, or a relative of, those profiled in the question. Some examples of responses are: 54 per cent stated they were good friends with a spokesperson for the community, 58 per cent were good friends with someone who was working to better the community, and 61 per cent were good friends with a community board member. I designed two other questions dealing with structural social capital, specifically to address the level of embeddedness of one within local community organizations and associations. The reasoning behind these two questions evolved from the work of Putnam et al (1993) on social capital and civic engagement. Putnam is one of the more widely cited authors on social capital and he links the concept of social capital to civic virtue, arguing that civic virtue is more powerful when people have strong reciprocal social relations. One of the indicators that Putnam used in his studies was that of engagement with local associations, this being a form of networks social capital. It is for this reason that I included these questions that measure network ties to community organizations. Question 35 (Appendix 1): Please indicate any community organizations that you belonged to prior to the 1992 Northern cod moratorium and your level of involvement. Question 40 (Appendix 1): The following questions ask what community organizations, if any, you currently belong to and what best describes your level of involvement. Please check of any organizations that you are involved with in the response column that reflects your level of activity as a member. Table 5:2 provides the comparative results for the 'active' and 'very active' responses results of these two questions which deal with structural social capital by providing information on the extent to which one was, and still is, involved with community organizations. The responses allowed one to state: I am not a member, I am an inactive member, I am an active member, and I am a very active member. 74 Table 5:2 Membership in Community Organizations Organization Pre-Moratorium (1992) Present (2006) Very Active Active Very Active Active Church 22 % 15 % 6 % 24 % Fisher 49 % 24 % 27 % 39 % Council 9 % 6 % 6 % 6 % School 6 % 3 % 0 0 Other 21% 6% 24% 6% The notable responses in these questions are those for fishers' organizations, which in fact would be expected given that it is fishers being surveyed. The total for those who are either active or very active in fishers' organizations is 73 per cent for the pre- moratorium question and 67 per cent for current involvement. One can note that presently fewer numbers state 'very active' for this question which in all probability reflects the status of the fishery since the 1992 moratorium. However, there is only a 6 per cent decrease overall in fishers who remain active today in fisheries organizations. The fact that there is now no involvement with schools most likely stems from the fact that over the past fifteen years, the community's two schools (Protestant and Catholic) were shut down. At this time all children bus out of the community in order to attend school. I posed a similar question in the oral interviews, asking both about the extent of one's involvement with community organizations and also to describe the role that they play. The following are a couple of the responses to the question that asked about the role that organizations in the community such as the Harbour Authority, the co-op, the churches, town council, and the community development committee play: 75 "That's what keeps the community like Petty Harbour going and to me the closer they work together, the better for the community" (Petty Harbour fisher) "The organizations are very productive for the community especially the Harbour Authority" (Petty Harbour fisher) The responses were predominately favourable, describing the community organizations as being important in bringing in benefits to the community and getting vital work done such as major repairs to the wharf. It was noted by one participant that the role of the church appeared to be in decline, and that the role of the parish priest had faded into the background. According to this person, the annual blessing of the boats has not taken place in the past few years. This refers to a ceremony that has been present as far back as anyone can remember where the priest comes down to the wharf in the spring to bless the boats prior to the commencement of the fishery. This ritual involved all of the family members going down to the wharf, holy water being sprinkled on the boats, the priest's blessing with a prayer, and then all boats going out through the harbour's mouth for a short run on the ocean. This year, 2007, the community is having its first 'Come Home Petty Harbour' day, and I noticed on the website for the event that the 'Blessing of the Boats' ceremony is posted as a key event on the seven day agenda. Cognitive Social Capital: Trust For my case study, I have chosen trust as the main indicator to provide a measure for cognitive social capital. The literature identifies trust as a critical indicator of social capital that should be factored into the analysis of social relationships (Putnam et al, 1998; Schuller et all, 2000; Baron et al, 2000; Foley et al, 2001; Wuthnow, 2004). Research on sustainable development in rural communities, argues that trust is an integral component upon which an infrastructure for creating social capital can built, thus the importance of it for my study (Dale, 2005). Keeping in mind the importance of developing community specific indicators, I developed a series of questions that are similar to those used in several international studies of rural communities (OECD, 1998). Question 39: When a family has a serious crisis in this community neighbors tend to help out? The results of this question show that over 94 per cent of those interviewed either agree 76 or strongly agree that neighbors help out when there is a crisis. These results are not surprising based on my first hand knowledge of the community. The residents of Petty Harbour have banded together many times over the years to help out families that hit major crises. Examples of this include fundraising to replace homes or to send someone to the mainland for medical treatment that is not available in Newfoundland. Other questions provided an opportunity for the respondents to express whether fishers could in the past, and still can today, rely on each other for help when in trouble. Question 41 (Appendix 1): Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Your community as a safe place both for yourself and your children. Question 43 (Appendix 1): Prior to the 1992 moratorium could fishers rely on help from other fishers if they had problems (boat or gear) either on land or while at sea? Question 44 (Appendix 1): Since the 1992 moratorium fishers can still rely on help from other fishers if they have boat or gear problems either on land or while at sea. The responses to these three questions were incredibly uniform with 94 per cent of the participants stating agreement with questions 41 and 44, and 97 per cent agreeing with question 43. These results speak strongly to the level of trust that those who responded to the questionnaire have both in other fishers and the community in general. Table 5: 4 presents the comparative results between pre and post moratorium questions on whether fishers can be relied upon to help out in a time of crisis. 77 Table 5:3 Do fishers help out in a time of crisis? Pre-Moratorium Post-Moratorium Strongly Agree 73% 58% Agree 24% 36% Unsure 3% 3% Disagree 0 0 Strongly Disagree 0 3% Of interest with these results is that in terms of agreement, as in question 39, over 90 per cent of those who completed the survey questionnaire still agree that fishers can be relied upon in a time of crisis. The fact that fishers can rely on each other has in fact been historically documented. One example of this was a heroic rescue of four fishers that resulted in awards of bravery being issued to several others in the community. Fishers helping each other appears to be the nature of the Newfoundland inshore fishery in general and in the case of Petty Harbour, community fishers tend to know where the boats of the community are fishing, which boats have not returned by the end of the day, and who might be at risk. As can be seen with the responses to these questions on trust, there was a uniformly high level of agreement with the indicators presented that Petty Harbour is a safe place to live where one can count on their neighbours either at work or otherwise to help out in a time of crisis. Leadership Leadership is seen as an important aspect along with network ties and trust, in research on why some communities can organize while others do not (Granovetter, 1973; Krishna, 2002; Dale and Onyx, 2005). The type of collaborative action such as that witnessed in Petty Harbour tends to arise as a result of local institutions of governance that see strong traditional leadership (Pretty and Ward, 2001; Krishna, 2002). Community management of natural resources such as fisheries that emerges on a local level generally arises out of institutions such as local associations and traditional leadership (Pretty and Ward, 2001). It has been identified that community governance 78 has the potential to play an increasing role in solving development and sustainability problems (Bowles and Gintis, 2001; Beckley et al, 2002). This makes the investigation of leadership in relationship to social capital important to this thesis. The important role that social capital plays in community governance is well-documented and leadership is a strong component of this.(Bowles and Gintis, 2002). In order to investigate whether Petty Harbour had strong leadership, perceived or otherwise, I developed locally relevant indicators based on my personal knowledge of the community and some informal discussions with local fishers. I created a question that was designed to serve two purposes: the first was to allow the participant to define what a leader was, and the second to ask whether Petty Harbour had strong leadership as per the five statements defining a leader. Table 5:4 presents the results to this question. Table 5:4 Defining Leadership in Petty Harbour A leader is: Strongly Agree Agree A leader works to make the community a better place to live in 82 % 18 % A leader is someone who is recognized as a spokesperson for the community 73 % 24 % A leader takes control in a crisis 68 % 32 % A leader can be called on for help 73 % 24 % A leader must have good communication skills 70 % 18 % According to these statements, Petty^Harbour has strong leadership 73 % 21 % What can be seen in these results is that there is overwhelming agreement on what constitutes leadership, and likewise, that Petty Harbour is perceived by participants to have strong leadership. Petty Harbour does in fact have a lengthy history of strong 79 leadership, a fact that is well recognized both within and outside of the community. Several of the participants who agreed to oral interviews brought this issue up in statements such as: 'We always had very strong leadership here, it passed down I guess through the generations, we learned it from our fathers and grandfathers" "Certainly had it in the past (Petty Harbour) and today it still has strong leadership" "Gee yes definitely in the past and definitely today ^ we had it in the past and we still do" (Petty Harbour fishers) The participants of my survey not only have the perception that Petty Harbour has had strong leadership; many of them actually self-identify as leaders. One of my questions asked: do you think of yourself as a community leader (Question 32, Appendix 1)? The response options for this question were yes, no, and 'at times'. The responses for this question reflected the fact that 60 per cent of the participants thought of themselves as leaders either some of the time, or all of the time. It was actually an equal split between the two. This highlights the fact that many of the people who responded to my questionnaire appear to be engaged and committed to their community. It is well established that taking on leadership responsibilities tends to be a selfless task that takes up time and energy, in other words, draws on one's personal life with little to no material return. It is this level of commitment that inspired me to explore 'sense of ownership' as another concept that could potentially explain the commitment to activism. Sense of Ownership When developing this concept, I tried to capture what would best describe the strong sense of inherent right to access an intergenerational fishery, to have input both locally and nationally into policy and legislation affecting the fishery, and to maintain the right to create rules of access locally through local committees. The results of the questions developed to measure this variable are of interest as they provide insight into the way Petty Harbour fishers envision what their rights should be. I had expected that there would be a positive correlation between the indicators chosen for sense of ownership but this was not the case. While I cannot determine precisely why it did not work I can speculate on a couple of possible answers. It may be the fact that the sample population 80 was small, or perhaps the way questions were posed. Nonetheless, from a descriptive perspective, the results of these questions are worth reporting as they provide valuable insights on the strong attachment to, and sense of control or ownership over, fish resources that Petty Harbour fishers have. Question 22 (Appendix 1) provides information on how the community has had control over, and input into, fishing management practices in the past. The participant is asked to state their level of agreement with seven different statements, each of which reflects some aspect of community management of fish resources. The values are: 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree), 1 (strongly disagree), and -9 (not sure). 81 Table 5:5 Control over the fishery Petty Harbour has had: Percentage of agreement Control over the gear types used in community 85 % Control over who fishes in Petty Harbour 52 % Control over fish sales in the community 45 % Control over daily quotas landed 49 % Able to influence DFO decisions 70 % Control over the quality of fish 67 % Control over fish berths 85 % Number 33 One of the questions (Question 17, Appendix 1) asks the participant who should have the final say in matters affecting local fishing rights and there six possible choices were provided. Out of the six options, three provided a response that the community should be directly involved either on its own, or in partnership with one of two levels of government, the federal and the province. What is noteworthy about the responses to this question is that it is apparent that people feel strongly that their community should be actively involved in issues that impact their fishery. The responses were: 30 per cent believe that the community should have the final say, 21 per cent the chose the federal government in conjunction with the community, and 33 per cent chose the province and community as an option for governance of the fishery. As can be seen, over 80 per cent of the participants state that the community either on its own or in conjunction with the provincial or federal government should have the final say in fisheries matters affecting the community. Question 19 (Appendix 1) asks whether state consultation with the community on fishing 82 matters affecting the community should be obligatory. There is a scaled response of strongly agree to strongly disagree. The values are: 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree), 1 (strongly disagree), and -9 (not sure). The response to this question is a strong statement about how the fishers of Petty Harbour perceive their right to consultation and input on fishery matters that affect the community. There was unanimous agreement with this statement with 82 per cent stating they strongly agreed and the remaining 18 per cent stating they agreed. The oral interviews made it clear that the perceived right to be consulted about fishery issues extends to those that take place beyond the boundaries of the local fish grounds. Examples were the right to be involved with decision making about migrating fishes and the technologies used, if there was a perception that the Petty Harbour fishery would be impacted. There was a similar sentiment expressed when the question was asked whether intergenerational fishing privileges should be a right, with 90 per cent of the participants either agreeing or strongly agreeing that their children should have the right to fish. Conclusion It is apparent from the responses outlined in this chapter that Petty Harbour fishers feel a strong attachment to their community, a high level of responsibility to their neighbors, and a strong sense of trust and leadership. It is also apparent that there has been a high level of activism amongst those who completed the survey questionnaire for this study. In the following chapter I explore whether these actions have a positive correlation to each other in order to offer potential or partial explanations to the high level of activism that Petty Harbour fishers have exhibited over the decades. 83 CHAPTER 6 TESTING THE HYPOTHESES: LOCATING EXPLAINATIONS FOR ACTIVISM In this thesis I have posed the question: what social factors can help to explain the high level of activism in Petty Harbour? Treating activism as a dependent variable, I introduced four independent variables, hypothesizing that they can provide answers to the why Petty Harbour fishers have such a lengthy history of activism. The four independent variables are: structural social capital (networks), cognitive social capital (trust), leadership, and sense of ownership. This chapter examines the theoretical model that was introduced in chapter two. I present my four hypotheses and discuss the relevance of them to my study. I then present the exploratory analysis which reports a summary of my key findings that are not reported in the statistical analysis section that follows. The final section of this chapter provides tables showing the results of my bivariate and multiple regression analyses of the variables. Recent studies on social capital have examined how it can serve collective interests in areas such as development and sustainability (Krishna, 2002; Dale, 2005). Previous studies that have examined activism with respect to development issues, political activism, or sustainability issues, have identified that individual participation in activism is influenced by strong ties to family and friends, and trust in one's community. While there is some debate, or opposing perspectives on whether social capital is an individual or collective resource, there is agreement on the fact that networks make an important contribution to it (Harshaw and Tindall, 2005: 429). For my purposes I have chosen to study the aspect of social capital that is embedded in, or evolves out of personal networks, the intent being to examine whether individual involvement with personal networks has a positive correlation with activism. My study is attempting to explain how individual activism evolves into a working asset on a community level. I measure individual ties to personal networks (structural social capital) and trust (cognitive social capital). These choices of indicators are based on previous work on social capital, and find credibility in studies on development and sustainability ((Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Stolle and Rochon, 2001; Grootaert et al, 2004). I also look at perceptions of leadership and sense of ownership over fish resources, and whether there is a positive correlation between these two independent variables and activism. 84 Figure 6:1 provides a theoretical diagram describing the relationships between social capital, leadership, sense of ownership, and activism. I am making a distinction between structural social capital which references ties to family, friends and organization networks, and cognitive social capital which encompasses human agency and inherent trust. It is not the intent of the diagram to infer proven causal relationships, rather it is meant to suggest possible relationships between my variables. I am exploring in this thesis the ways in which social capital can lend itself both to the development of community leadership and a sense of ownership, which is defined in part by the way fishers have strived to create and maintain rules for participation in, and exploitation of, the fishery. I am also suggesting that leadership may explain in part how social capital can lead to activism outcomes such as the protection of common property fish resources. 85 Figure 6:1 Factors Explaining Activism Leadership: (Perceptions of Community Leadership Prior to 1992). Network Social Capital: (Ties to Relatives in Diverse Community Positions) Cognitive Social Capital —Trust: (Belief that a neighbor would help out in a crisis) Sense of Ownership: (Belief that community controls the resource) Activism 86 The Hypotheses The research question I ask in this thesis is: what social phenomena can explain the historically high level of activism of commercial fishers with respect to protectionism over fish resources in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland? The following are the four hypotheses that I propose to explain the activism of the community under study. Hypothesis 1: Strong social ties will have a positive correlation with activism. The hypothesis is stating that the extent of one's social ties to people in various community positions (social capital networks) will have a positive correlation with the level of one's activism. Social capital theory argues that the links and interactions between structure and action can be understood by examining individuals' social connections, their embeddedness in social structures such as informal networks, and their ability to access or mobilize resources for some type of gain, either personal or collective. (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Lin et al, 2001). Social ties are important with respect to collective action and there is an extensive body of literature on network theory that attempts to clarify why (Passy, 2003). In many studies the intensity of network ties is assumed to correlate with individual social capital. These findings differ to an extent from some that have found that weak ties could be more productive for those in pursuit of work (Granovetter, 1973). However others have noted that intensity of participation or involvement in higher risk forms of collective activism often relies on the presence of strong ties (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Foley et al, 2001; Passy, 2003). The literature review that I conducted shows that much of the theorizing with respect to weak ties and strong ties, points to the fact that when it comes to activism, stronger ties play a greater role in influencing peoples' decisions to participate (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Passy, 2003; Dale, 2005; Tilly, 2005). For this reason I developed a series of questions that probed participants' strength of ties, both weak and strong, to others in their community. Hypothesis 2: Trust will be positively correlated with activism. This hypothesis is meant to test whether one's level of trust (cognitive social capital) stated as one's perception that neighbours help out in a crisis, will have a positive 87 correlation with individual involvement with activism. The utility of using this particular hypothesis finds credibility in the fact that it has been used in many international studies (Putnam et al, 1993; Woolcock, 1999; Foley et al, 2001; Newton, 2001; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Wuthnow, 2004; Grootaert et al, 2004). Trust and reciprocity are viewed as critical components for building relationships, and it has been argued that any effort to explain or understand human relationships needs to include a detailed analysis of trust and the role it plays (Schuller et al, 2000; Newton, 2001; Wuthnow, 2004). While it has been argued that generalizing trust to large social groups does not lend itself to being a contextually relevant indicator, my personal knowledge of the community, which was reinforced through the survey questionnaire and oral interviews, is that trust as an indicator of social capital is highly relevant. Grootaert et al (2004) point out that one of the ways to address the criticism that generalized trust is not indicative of what occurs in local social groups is to introduce contextually relevant indicators to one's survey. With this in mind, I developed the locally relevant indicators to measure trust. Hypothesis 3: Leadership will be positively correlated with activism. It has been noted that informal networks are necessary but not sufficient to explain motivation to participate in activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Krishna, 2002). I suggest in this thesis that the presence of social capital is necessary but not sufficient to explain individual activism, and therefore I introduce leadership and sense of ownership as intervening variables to further explore explanations for the activism that has led to stewardship of fish resources on a local level. This hypothesis is presented to test whether one's perception of leadership will positively correlate with one's individual involvement with activism. In chapter three, I define leadership as the actions of individuals who engage with social and political activities at their own expense in an effort to affect change that is viewed as positive, and is therefore supported by a collectivity of people. Support for this indicator can be found in the literature that examines how people who believe their actions will be effective ,are more likely to participate in activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Foley et al, 2001). As well, studies have identified that individuals are more likely to participate when the networks they are involved with have trusted leaders. My questions asked the participants to describe the type of leadership their community had and asked for 88 agreement on whether there was strong leadership. There is in fact a lengthy, well- documented history of strong leadership in Petty Harbour so while the questions asked are only able to ascertain the individual perception, in fact, the evidence proves that these perceptions are accurate. Hypothesis 4: Sense of ownership will be positively correlated with activism. The intent with this hypothesis is to test whether one's sense of ownership over fish resources will positively correlate with activism. This term emerged from my field research when I was engaged with the community on a daily basis, and from my experiences as having been a resident fisher for several years prior to the moratorium. Keeping in mind the need to develop locally relevant indicators, I held debates with others, attempting to tease out a term that would provide conceptual clarity or accuracy to define the attitude of fishers towards their fish resources. The large investment in licences (both the DFO fee and the open market fee discussed in Chapter 4), gear, and boats, combined with 335 years of commercial fishing contributes to a sense of inherent right. i believe that 'sense of ownership' as a concept best explains the way in which local fishers believed in the right to control, manage, and protect their local fish resources. Exploratory Analysis — Introduction and Overview This section revisits the rationale for use of the particular indicators I have chosen to measure social capital networks, cognitive social capital, leadership, and sense of ownership. The details reported are specifically with respect to the relationship between my four independent variables, and my dependent variable activism. The following provides a summary of the key findings that, for the sake of brevity, will not be reported in tables. Social Capital Networks There is agreement amongst some academics that any theory of social capital must capture the links and interactions between structure and action (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Lin, 2001). This is in reference to individuals' social connections, their embeddedness in social structures such as informal networks, and their ability to access 89 or mobilize resources for some type of gain, either personal or collective. It is widely accepted that social ties are important with respect to collective activism and there is an extensive body on network theory that attempts to clarify why (Passy, 2003). It has also been established that social ties are important for social action and that understanding the mechanisms of social networks will lead to a better understanding of what motivates people to participate in activism (Passy, 2003). These ties tend to be defined as weak ties which suggest less emotional involvement such as one might have with an acquaintance, and strong ties, which implies more emotionally intense relationships such as with close friends and relatives. It has been shown in some studies that weak ties are more likely to determine positive outcomes for individuals (Granovetter, 73). Other studies show that people with close networks ties are more readily motivated, mobilized, and recruited to activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). In their search for theoretical explanations to why people participate in social movements, Klandermans and Oegema (1987) determined that knowing other participants is a strong incentive. Passy (2003) in her study on how participation in networks influences one's decision to take part in activism notes that the decision-shaping function is influenced by the action of others and that one's networks affects the intensity of participation. Some studies have shown that the intensity or number of network ties is positively correlated with one's decision to participate in activism (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Tindall, 2002). The preliminary analysis examined the correlation between the dependent variable activism and network social capital which is measured by range of weak and strong ties. Weak ties were measured by the range of one's network of acquaintances, and strong ties were measured by the range of one's network of friends and relatives. These relationship roles have been used in previous studies as indicators of weak ties and strong ties. I also created a variable for total ties and then for the initial exploratory analysis correlated all of these variables with activism. Neither correlation for acquaintances or good friends was significant; however, the range of ties for relatives was significant. The variable for range of strong ties and total ties were significant but only once the variable for 'relative ties' was factored in. It is for this reason that the only network social capital results reported in the final analysis are those for the range of relative ties. 90 Cognitive Social Capital - Trust Trust has been established as one of the key features of the conceptual framework upon Which social capital is built (Schuller et al, 2000). While there is some debate about its universal applications as a key constituent of social capital (Diani, 2001) it has been argued that any analysis of social capital must factor in trust because of its bridging role between structure and agency (Wuthnow, 2004: 152). Research on sustainable development in rural communities has placed trust in a central position with respect to creating social capital (Dale, 2005). This is due to the fact that cooperation and reciprocity play a critical role in the formation and mobilization of social capital and both of these rely on a foundation of trust (Dale, 2005). It has been noted that in small rural communities trust is often likely to emerge in informal community networks, the importance of this being how trust ultimately links to collective activism (Jackman and Miller, 1998; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Ostrom, 2001; Wuthnow, 2004: Dale, 2005). Charles Tilly (2005) who differentiates between networks with and without trust describes trust networks as those that are comprised of more intimate relationships and stronger ties thus enabling individuals to produce better collective benefits. People who share common goals such as trust are more inclined to organize and establish fair and encompassing rules (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001). For all of these reasons, I have chosen trust as a measure of cognitive social capital. I developed six questions that are viewed as standard indicators of trust in studies on rural communities. The questions posed are also community relevant based on my knowledge and understanding of Petty Harbour. The questions queried perceptions that one's community was a safe place, whether neighbors and fishers can be relied on to help out in a time of crisis, and whether there has ever been a time when the community has rallied to come to the aid of a family in crisis. These results are not reported in the final analysis as they did not prove to be significant when correlated with activism. Leadership I have defined leadership as the actions of individuals who engage with social and political activities at their own personal expense in an effort to effect positive change. Leadership has been identified as one of the important indicators that can help establish the likelihood that communities will be able to work successfully towards community sustainability (Nadeau et al, 1999: Beckley et al, 2002; Krishna, 2002). Leadership ranks 91 high as an indicator for community resilience and well-being, therefore it can be argued that community access to strong leadership lends itself to the formation of social capital. It has been argued by Krishna (2002) that social capital as defined by networks, norms and trust, is a given in small rural communities where people have extended families and lengthy relationships and dependencies over time. His contention is that the presence of social capital does not necessarily translate into action; a catalyst is required. His study revealed that while some villages had high levels of social capital not all were able to put it to work in terms of creating positive economic and development benefits for the community (Krishna, 2002). It was those communities with strong leadership that were able to generate positive benefits for the collective good of the village. I devised a series of questions designed to tease out a community specific relevant definition of leadership and to determine whether participants believed that their community has had strong leadership according to this definition. The intention was to try and establish whether these perceptions of leadership influenced one's involvement with, activism. People are more likely to participate if they perceive that their actions will meet with success, and also if there is the presence of trusted leadership (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). With this in mind I developed pre and post moratorium questions on the perception of leadership in Petty Harbour. What is interesting is that the pre- moratorium question that asked whether Petty Harbour had strong leadership produced significant results when correlated with activism however the present day (post- moratorium) question that is identical, does not. I have therefore not reported the results of the present day leadership question. I believe there is validity in using the pre- moratorium (pre 1992) results as it questions whether the community had strong leadership before the fishery closed down and produced both descriptively interesting and statistically significant results. The variable activism being investigated in this thesis focuses on fisheries activism, much of which occurred prior to the closure of the fishery which therefore provides validity to using the variable leadership from the same time frame. Sense of Ownership The origin of this concept evolved out of a lengthy struggle with trying to define from a personal perspective, what could explain the way Petty Harbour fishers continually lobbied for the right to control their fishery and the local management of the resource. I 92 held debates with others on what conceptually would help to define these actions. Much of the literature on social capital emphasizes the fact that people engage in self-serving activities; however this does not adequately address what I know about the community. The concept 'sense of ownership' is broadly defined as belief in both the fact that there should be right to access and control fish resources and that there exists the collective ability to effectively manage the fish resources. On the thesis questionnaire the following questions were asked: who should be consulted about decisions affecting the local fishery, should intergenerational fishing rights be a given, and who should control local access to fish resources? I had expected that some of the sense of ownership indicators would positively correlate with activism but this was not the case. It is not clear why this is the case, and it is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore in detail explanations for this. It is possible that the lack of diversity in many of the responses could partially explain this, although this was not the case with the leadership variable which also had uniform responses yet correlated significantly with the activism variable. The results may also have been influenced by the question format, and it could also be that the sample population (N = 33) is too limited to generate a substantively and/or statistically significant outcome. Separate from these issues, it could be that as a concept, sense of ownership fails to capture the essence of individual commitment to common property management. Bivariate Results The first step in testing the four proposed hypotheses involved analysing the correlation between the four independent variables, (network social capital, cognitive social capital, leadership, sense of ownership) and the dependent variable activism. Table 6:1 presents the results of intercorrelations between these variables. What is apparent from Table 6:1 is that there is a positive significant correlation between three of the four independent variables and the dependent variable, activism. There is a positive correlation between structural social capital (r = .41, p. 5 .05), cognitive social capital (r = .44, p. 5 .01), leadership (r = .41, p. 5 .05), and activism. My hypothesis that sense of ownership would positively correlate with activism was not supported (r = .00, p. NS). 93 Table 6:1 Intercorrelations Amongst Independent and Dependent Variables Activism Network Social Capital Cognitive Social Capital Leadership^Sense of Ownership Activism 1 Network Social .41* 1 Capital Cognitive .44** .12 1 Social Capital Leadership .41 * .10 .18 1 Sense^of .18 .18 .11 .28 Ownership Note: N = 33 * p.^.05, ** p. 5_ .01. 94 .35* Figure 6:2 Multiple Regression Results: Factors Explaining Activism Leadership: (Perceptions of Community Leadership Prior to 1992). Network Social Capital: (Ties to Relatives in Diverse Community Positions) Cognitive Social Capital —Trust: (Belief that a neighbor would help out in a crisis) Sense of Ownership: (Belief that community controls the resource) .31 * .34* R2 = .42 ACTIVISM Multiple Regression Results I conducted multivariate analysis in order to examine the net association between my dependent variable activism and my four independent variables. Table 6:2 presents a 95 multiple regression model that helps to explain activism. Table 6:2 Multiple Regression Model Explaining Activism Using Standardized Regression Coefficients Network Social Capital^ .34* Cognitive Social Capital .35* Leadership^ .31 * Sense of Ownership^ .00 R2^.42* Adjusted R2^.34* N^ 33 Note: * p. .05, ** p. < .01. The activism variable, which is treated as the dependent variable, is regressed against four independent variables: network social capital, cognitive social capital, leadership, and sense of ownership. The multiple regression analysis reinforces that there are positive and significant relationships between network social capital (b. = .34, p. s .05), cognitive social capital (b. = .35, p. s .05), and leadership (b. = .31, p. s .05). Again, there is no effect for sense of ownership (b. = .00, p. .NS). The multiple regression analysis provides additional support for hypotheses one, two, and three, but not for hypothesis four. It is also noteworthy that a substantial amount of variation in the dependent variable is explained by this model, in spite of there only being four variables. The R2 is .42 and the adjusted R 2 is .34, thus 34 per cent of the variation is explained by the model, a point of interest given the small sample size. Discussion In this thesis I have chosen to conduct a case study in a community where collective action has occurred. I have drawn on the literature for theoretical meaning and support 96 in order to develop four hypotheses that could help explain the activism. The question posed: what social phenomena can explain the historically high level of activism in Petty Harbour appears to be answered in part by my research. Three of the four independent variables designed to test the hypotheses which were proposed to explain activism resulted in positive significant results. The results of the multiple regression model supports the first hypothesis that people's ties to relatives (structural social capital, networks) affect their decision to become involved with different types of activism. This confirms what the literature on activism and social capital states: people are more likely to become involved in activism through the influence of strong ties, such as close friends and relatives (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987; Foley et al, 2001; Passy, 2003). The regression model also confirms support for the second hypothesis: one's level of trust, stated as one's perception that neighbours help out in a crisis, will have a positive correlation with individual involvement with activism. Trust is one of the key indicators of social capital and for this reason was chosen to be one of the independent variables (Putnam, 1998; Schuller et all, 2000; Baron et al, 2000; Foley et al, 2001). Trust has been linked to cooperative behaviours and as an extension of this to collective activism (Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Lin, 2001; Dale and Onyx, 2005). The indicator I chose to measure trust was based on a social capital study commissioned by the World Bank, and conducted by Grootaert et al (2004). The third hypothesis on leadership, which is that one's perception of leadership will positively correlate to one's individual involvement with activism, did in fact appear to have support in the regression model. I have defined leadership as the actions of individuals who engage with social and political activities at their own personal expense in an effort to effect positive. Leadership has been identified as one of the important indicators that can help establish the likelihood that communities will be able to work successfully towards community sustainability. The variable for sense of ownership which stated: one's sense of ownership over fish resources will positively correlate with activism, did not have significant correlations to activism. I developed this concept after a detailed review of the literature on community sustainability, and concepts such as 'attachment to place' in respect to research on 97 forest communities (den Otter and Beckley, 2002). As a concept, it evolved out of an effort to develop a meaningful and community relevant indicator of social capital that could withstand scrutiny. While there is presently no theoretical body of literature that references this concept, there are indications that in the future there could be some utility to it, particularly in relationship to research on common property theory and community sustainability. Conclusion In this thesis I have established that in Petty Harbour, structural social capital in the form of networks, cognitive social capital (trust) and perceptions or belief that the community had strong leadership do in fact help to explain the historically high level of individual activism. The independent variable, sense of ownership, that was developed to describe the way in which fishers in the community treat fish resources like communal private property, while of interest descriptively, did not produce significant results in the multiple regression model. Chapter two provided a literature review of social capital, social indicators of sustainability, and common property theory. In chapter three I described the methodology employed in data collection as well as the ethnographic details relevant to this thesis. I described my population of interest, my sampling strategy, what was involved with data collection, and details on the response rates both to my survey questionnaires and my oral interviews. I defined my variables and discussed how they were operationalized. In chapter four I provided an historical overview of Petty Harbour, in order to provide as contextual background to the community under study. I reviewed the historical context that gave rise to the modern industrial fishery, and discussed how modernization of the industry was instrumental in shaping the direction of modern fisheries. I concluded the chapter by examining the socio-economic impacts of destroyed fisheries on coastal fishing communities. Chapter five provided the reader with the results of the descriptive analysis. In chapter six I examined the theoretical model upon which I built my thesis (Figure 6:1). I presented my four hypotheses and then provided tables showing the results of my bivariate and multiple regression analyses. Treating activism as a dependent variable, I introduced four independent variables, hypothesizing that they would provide answers to the why Petty Harbour fishers had such a lengthy history of activism. The four 98 independent variables are: structural social capital (networks), cognitive social capital (trust), leadership, and sense of ownership. The final results of my research find support in the existing literature on social capital: activism is an important indicator of social capital and one's ties to individuals and trust in one's community positively associate with individual participation in activism. Apparently, in Petty Harbour social capital in the form of network ties is important. It exhibits through social ties to people who maintain high profiles within the community, and apparently the stronger the ties, the more likely one is to engage in activism. As well, one's perception of strong leadership apparently influences one's level of involvement with activism. These conclusions concur with the research findings of my literature review. My final results and discussion chapter will examine the broader implications of this work, and potential directions for further study in this area. 99 CHAPTER SEVEN: FINAL DISCUSSION Introduction In this final chapter, I provide a brief discussion of my research results in the context of the literature on social capital. I also discuss what elements of my research project worked, what expectations were met, and which expectations were not met. I explore possibilities for further research such as conducting comparative studies on a community level that will measure and compare indicators of social capital. I then examine the broader implications of my research for sustainability of coastal fishing communities. The final section of this chapter examines future directions and potential solutions to the crises that resource dependent communities are facing throughout the world. The conclusion of this thesis will build on the existing argument that alternative models of resource management are required and will argue that understanding the relationship between social capital, indicators of sustainability, and common property theory has much to offer this field Overview of Results The literature on social capital points out that it is a powerful tool that can serve the collective interests of people living in rural communities who are struggling with development and sustainability issues (Krishna, 2002; Dale, 2005). It has also been identified that individual participation in collective activism directed towards protectionism of a common property resource is strongly influenced by one's social network ties and that trust in one's community and/or leadership (Klandermans and Oegema, 1987). In this thesis I have examined social capital in conjunction with indicators of sustainability, and common property theory. After conducting a detailed literature review on social capital, I chose to study the aspects of social capital that have been used in international studies: structural social capital (networks) and cognitive social capital (trust). My research has explored how the relationship between network ties, trust, leadership, and sense of ownership over fish resources may have inspired individual activism that evolved into a working asset, social capital, on a community level. The intention of my thesis was to use the literature on social capital to try and explain the high level of activism that Petty Harbour fishers exhibited with respect to their natural fish 100 resources. I proposed four hypotheses not so much to prove specific relationships, rather to explore explanations about the community's collective activism and develop ideas that could provide insights into how sustainability of fish resources might occur on a community level. The variables that were chosen for this thesis are conceptually relevant to social capital, and in fact, have been identified as valid indicators of social capital in many studies. The results of my research show that for the fishers of Petty Harbour, network ties and trust are indicators that an individual will be more likely to engage in activism. It has been shown in my study that if one has a perception of strong community leadership, that there is a greater likelihood of participation in activism. These results concur with the existing literature on social capital. Social capital as defined by the literature has not only been present in Petty Harbour, there has also been effective mobilization of it, using the advantage of close ties, trust, and strong leadership to develop sustainable practices in this community. In the context of Petty Harbour, the pathway, or conduit for mobilization of social capital can be understood to an extent in terms of three of the chosen variables: network social capital, cognitive social capital, and leadership. While the variable 'sense of ownership' did not show a positive correlation to activism, it provides interesting information on the attitudes that Petty Harbour fishers have towards their right to access the community's fish resources. The following is a table that provides the level of agreement that the participants had with several of the survey questions that were designed to be measure for the variable 'sense of ownership'. Table 7:1 Level of Agreement with 'Sense of Ownership' Indicators Sense of Ownership Agree Your community has the ability to control gear types used in its fishery. 84% Your children should have the right to fish. 91% Your community has the capability to manage its fishery. 82% Your community has managed its fish resources in the past. 82% Your community has had control over fish berths. 85% Your community has been able to influence DFO decisions. 70% 101 The response scale allowed participants to choose from a range of 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'. For the purpose of simplifying the table, I have combined the strongly agree and agree results into one category. The majority of participants, on average over 50 per cent, answered strongly agree to all but one of the questions. The one exception is the question that asks about the ability to influence DFO decisions; in this case it was the reverse with 55 per cent agreeing and 15 per cent strongly agreeing. These results suggest that the majority fishers who responded to my survey question feel strongly about their right of access and also their ability to provide effective management over local fish resources. These results suggest that there may be another form of social capital at work in Petty Harbour, one that builds capacity through a strong sense of ownership that leads to management of a common property resource. The Indicators Dilemma One of the outcomes of my research points out the need for further work on indicators that are used to measure community sustainability. At the beginning of this study I researched the literature for indicators of social capital particularly with respect to activism and the implications for resource dependent communities. What I discovered is that while there are agreed upon indicators of social capital such as networks, norms, and trust, the deeper one delves into the literature, the more apparent it becomes that there are several overlapping concepts used to explore and theorize the complexities of community sustainability. The study of resource dependent communities has led to the development of a plethora of socio-economic indicators, many of which address overlapping ideas both conceptually and theoretically. Some of the key concepts apart from social capital used to describe, discuss, and explore solutions to community sustainability are community capacity, social cohesion, community resilience, and community adaptivity. All of these constructs are widely used by social scientists to describe community sustainability. These constructs can be measured by two distinctly different types of indicators: profile and process indicators (Beckley et al, 2002). As mentioned in chapter two, profile indicators refer to the standard indicators that have been used to capture demographic information such as age, education, economics status, and real estate values. Process indicators deal with causal effects and consist of variables such as leadership, volunteerism, social cohesion and attachment to place. (Beckley et al, 2002). The 102 importance of process indicators lies in their ability to provide insights into how things evolved and how change may be implemented (Beckley et al, 2002). Beckley et al (2002) have pointed out that while profile indicators are more commonly used because they are easier to measure, there are drawbacks to relying on them exclusively to measure social constructs of well-being in communities (Beckley et al, 2002). This is because they fail to capture broader social issues such as one's sense of well being or attachment to community. There are other important issues of concern that are difficult to capture with standard indictors: one's contentedness with their work, the social cohesion of the community, and local empowerment through the ability and opportunity to act (Beckley, 1995). These types of phenomena complicate the process of conducting an analysis of the social and economic well-being of communities (Beckley, 1995). Process and profile indicators have been used to study Canadian forestry communities in order to gather information on community capacity, well-being, and resilience, leadership, social capital (networks), attachment to place, and volunteerism (see Nadeau et al, 1999; den Otter and Beckley, 2002; Beckley et al, 2002). It was in part building on the ideas of Beckley et al (2002) that I developed sense of ownership as a process indicator to describe the strong attachment to the common property fish resources that Petty Harbour fishers have exhibited. The issues raised by my thesis lend support to the fact that standard indicators of sustainability are inadequate to measure well being of a community. The dilemma that arises by only relying on standard indicators can be witnessed if one uses the example of Petty Harbour. Three standard indicators that have been, and still are used to measure community well being are education levels, real estate values, and the alternative economy of tourism. Education levels are on the rise in Petty Harbour. My research that showed that 44 per cent of the survey participants had not completed high school and 27 per cent had a trade. At the time of my field work in the community (winter 2006), every person I spoke with had at least one child in university which is quite a noticeable change from 20 years ago. This information is in fact supported by the 2001 Statistics Canada Census that shows greater numbers of younger people completing high school, and entering trades or university. The Statistics Canada Census for 2001 shows that over 90 per cent of the age group of 20-34 have a high school diploma. Real estate values are also on the rise: I bought my home in 1978 for $3500, I sold it in 1998 for $28,000 and it sold again in 2005 for $110,000. Today it is difficult to purchase 103 a house in the community for under $150,000. Several houses in the community have been bought by foreign interests who seasonally offer weekly rentals and bed and breakfast services. Tourism has become a major focus of the development committees who hope to see Petty Harbour become the Peggy's Cove of Newfoundland. The Community Development Committee advised me that on average about ten tour buses a day come through the community during the peak summer months: the community's proximity to St. John's makes it an attractive location for the tour bus operators. As a result of this two or three seasonal coffee shops have been opened in Petty Harbour. It is hard to argue that these are not positive trends, and in fact, that is not the point. In Petty Harbour there are presently eleven community organizations that meet regularly, working hard with each other to develop future plans for the community. However, the fact that the culture of fishing has been severely eroded causes concern for many, this is something that came up repeatedly in the oral interviews. Many of the youth in the community are being forced to leave home because of no employment. It is difficult for the younger generation to purchase a home in their community due to the dramatic increase in real estate values combined with a shortage of available homes. The Grand Banks, a world class ecosystem has apparently been compromised, with many of its major stocks depleted, and some of its species pushed to the brink of extinction. These are very serious statements about the potential for sustainability of fishing communities such as Petty Harbour. When standard indicators are used to measure community sustainability there is a high risk that analytical outcomes and conclusions will be skewed. Measuring process indicators such as social capital, activism, the status of local culture and knowledge, and the status of the natural resource, can provide a more comprehensive picture of how well a community is doing. Looking Beyond Petty Harbour: Implications for Sustainability of Fishing Communities This section asks: what does understanding social capital in the context of Petty Harbour have to offer, and what are the broader implications of this research for sustainability of coastal fishing communities? Globally, communities with historical attachment to migrating fish stocks have been severely impacted by ideological shifts in modes of production that see industrial expansionism on a scale not previously witnessed. This has been well documented by academics, scientists, environmental activists, as well as 104 national and international bodies of governance. I have used my study to try and understand the role that social capital has played in the past in a single resource dependent community and is there a role that it can play in the future for communities like Petty Harbour. In a discussion about the theoretical links between social capital and sustainability Anne Dale (2005) notes that while these can be demonstrated, the links in practice may be more difficult to establish due to the fact that they are paradoxical in nature. She cites as an example, Newfoundland fishing communities, pointing out that while they have high social capital, they are struggling with ecological and economic decline (Dale, 2005). The paradox she describes is precisely what Petty Harbour is facing. My case study has pointed out some of the ways that fishers have used different aspects of social capital to maintain, monitor, regulate, and protect their resources on a local level. In spite of this, the fish stocks that have traditionally been fished in Petty Harbour are migratory, and subject to extraction by interceptor fisheries both on a national and international level. While Petty Harbour exhibited high levels of protectionism towards its resource on a local level, local practices were undermined by state endorsed, external extractive forces. Privatization of the fishery led to a situation where industrial fleets from Canada and other nations intercepted and severely undermined migrating stocks in the Northwest Atlantic, causing what is commonly referred to as a 'collapse' of the fishery. Social capital in Petty Harbour appears to have played a role in collective activism much of which was aimed at protectionism of fish stocks but ultimately sustainable practices on the community level were not able to ensure survival of the resource. As of today in Petty Harbour there is no traditional cod fishery and there is no food fishery. Since the declaration of the Northern cod moratorium in 1992 there have been some dramatic demographic changes to the numbers of licenced fishers in the community. According to the 1985 Atlantic Fishing Licence Directory, there were 112 fishers licenced for ground fish (Anon, 1985). Separate from this there were many more regular fulltime unlicenced fishers because the hook and line cod fishery did not require a licence at the time. Today there are 54 fulltime licenced fishers in the community and there is no unlicenced fishing allowed. The lucrative snow crab fishery which is accessed by less than half the number of pre-moratorium fishers is experiencing a serious decline after ten short years. While the reason for this has not yet been formally acknowledged by DFO, there are speculations that increased quotas over the first few years may be 105 partially to blame for this. Others have speculated that there may have been a population bloom in the snow crab in the aftermath of the destroyed cod fishery as cod represented a key predator of young snow crab. At this time, there is a growing concern that the community specific, traditional intergenerational knowledge is being lost. The degradation of Petty Harbour's fishery has impacted the economic status of the community and while the 2006 economic census information will not be released until May 2008, a comparison between 1996 and 2001 shows an increase in the earnings gap between Petty Harbour and the rest of Newfoundland. The 1996 Statistics Canada census shows the average earnings in 1995 for all persons with earnings in Petty Harbour (legally described as Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove since the town's 1972 incorporation) was $19,032 compared to the rest of Newfoundland which was $19,710. The same comparison for the year 2000 shows the average earnings in Petty Harbour were $19,156 while they were $24,165 for Newfoundland. While the full explanation for this difference cannot be determined, what is known is that the Petty Harbour fishery had supported four seasonally operated fish plants that employed several hundred fishers and plant workers (Clark, 1993). In the aftermath of the 1992 moratorium hundreds of jobs were lost, and the figures suggest that Petty Harbour residents have not kept pace with the rest of the province in terms of increasing individual annual incomes. The community is also experiencing a decrease in population since the moratorium, its most dramatic decrease being between 2001 and 2006, down from 949 to 915, a 3.6 per cent loss in population (Statistics Canada Census, 2006). As a result of these changes, an erosion of social capital has taken place within several areas: loss of income, loss of the culture of fishing and the lifestyle associated, decrease in population, and loss of traditional knowledge systems. These are classic symptoms of a community being undermined through erosion of its social capital. This is a global pattern that carries serious repercussions for the people and communities as well as for marine stocks and ecosystems. Another documented side effect of resource degradation is that once a sense of ownership and control over the resource are destroyed, attitudes towards the resource and also of community members towards each other can shift. Several of the fishers interviewed noted changes to the social aspects of the fishery, particularly with respect to the idea that 'it's every man for himself' whereas before people were more generous about lending a hand. It has been documented that resource degradation from external extractive forces can lead to a situation where the 106 attitude of each person for themselves prevails and traditional values and respect for the resource are lost (Berkes, 1987; Holling et al, 2000). When disempowerment on the local level occurs and the right to regulate, the right of access, and the right to earn a living are removed, there is a greater likelihood that the systems of norms break down. Another symptom of a fishery under pressure is technological changes that involve the use of more sophisticated track and catch technologies, and larger boats (Neis et al, 1999; Kirkley et al, 2005). In their study of the rural Newfoundland fishery, Neis et at (1999: 228) describe the classic shift in technology that has accompanied modernization processes across continents. They note the increased size in vessels, higher horsepower, greater fish-finding capacity through modern technologies such as sonar, and the global pattern of targeting high-density populations. These shifts that tend to emerge when a fishery is under pressure have exhibited in Petty Harbour since the 1992 moratorium. Fishers have increased their boat size in order to fish further offshore. In my survey, 12 percent of the fishers stated that they used fiberglass boats over 10 m prior to the 1992 moratorium whereas 79 per cent stated they are now using boats over 10 m in length. Fishers require the larger boats because the crab fishery takes place further offshore, generally about 40 — 50 kilometers from shore. This represents a radical change to the fishery as it is the first time since the community was settled that boats stay out overnight and fish such great distances from shore. It was noted by more than one fisher that the safety of the fishery has decreased dramatically with the new style of fishing. One of the participants interviewed noted that Petty Harbour fishers were never meant to stay away from home, it was never their style, and that as a result of the changes, some decided, like himself, to become what is referred to as a 'slipper skipper'. This references the fact that the skipper never leaves shore but hires others to catch his quota. Fishers of Petty Harbour now predominately fish a single species, the snow crab. This fishery is indicative of the 'fishing down' pattern of exploiting species from lower trophic levels when the higher levels such as Northern cod have been fished out. All of the Petty Harbour boats are now equipped with more sophisticated electronic technologies such as sonar and GPS. These changes in technologies bring greater safety to fishers while at sea, and would possibly have evolved over time. The point being made is that the new fishery did not emerge out of a healthy scenario, a choice to broaden one's horizons; rather it resulted from the decline of their primary fishery, the cod. Fishers have been forced to travel greater distances in 107 order to fish previously unexploited species, in larger and much more expensive boats. While the changes in Petty Harbour are on a much smaller scale than one can see in industrial fisheries, the patterns mirror those seen in the larger commercial fisheries and are representative of fisheries under pressure. It is apparent that the fishers of Petty Harbour have not been exempt from some of the pressures of modernization. It is important to note that there is a certain tension that exists in this research with respect to the community's social capital. The community has had the advantage of high levels of social capital working for it; however, it was not sufficient to save its fishery. I do not see this as a contradiction in the study; however I do note it as a tension. The community to this day still exhibits strong network ties that work effectively for those in crisis. One example of this is the fundraiser that took place five days before I left the community in March, 2006. A card game was held on Sunday night to raise money for a local resident who had to be flown to the mainland for cancer treatment. The community raised over ten thousand dollars in one evening and a second game was planned for the following Tuesday. As mentioned earlier in this thesis, there are eleven active community organizations working constantly to find viable solutions to its community's survival. I would argue that social capital has been actively working for the community for decades, if not longer, and still is. It is quite probably due to the fact that the community was highly organized, tightly networked, extremely socio-politically active, that in the aftermath of the moratorium it has maintained an important profile, and strong community infrastructure that continues to work to the benefit of the community. I have not argued in this thesis that social capital can withstand the powerful forces of modernization that have seen global forces through trade agreements supported by national and international institutions combine to support an industrial assault on natural resources and the social fabric of small communities. What I am attempting to show with this work is that social capital has been a critical component of community engagement with governance and protection schemes designed to aid on the local level, and that by extension of this, it has the potential to play a critical role moving forward in time with respect to both restoration and future sustainability of natural resources. The research conducted for this thesis supports the argument that the mobilization of social capital has the potential to provide both infrastructure and empowerment to resource dependent communities. There is sufficient evidence to establish that the land 108 based low impact technologies of the inshore fishery in Newfoundland had the potential to maintain and sustain a more enduring fishery on a local level. This personal speculation finds confirmation in the work of many academics who have examined traditional societies and their management systems (Johannes, 1981; Berkes, 1987; Holling et al, 2000; Brody, 2000). The inshore fishery of Petty Harbour offered three of the most fundamental necessities of a healthy fishery: a seasonal fishery that allowed the fish respite for spawning and recovery, low impact technologies that lacked the track and catch capability of industrial fleets, and its technologies left ecosystems intact including the benthic environment. As well, the community exhibits many of the proven indicators of social capital required to maintain sustainability: activism, leadership, strong network ties, and trust. If the historical fishing practices of the community could be extended to reach beyond the community, and infuse in national governance, multinational corporations, and international institutions, it is almost certain that one would witness a slow recovery of fish stocks. It has been suggested that governance and social capital are interchangeable because they represent one and the same thing: powerful tools that can help a community maintain its socio-economic integrity (Bowles and Gintis, 2002). If effective change in fisheries is to be implemented, evidence suggests that the most likely scenario for a turn around may be on the local community level where people have been able to use these tools to provide protection to a resource investment that stretches beyond economic attachment. There are substantiated mechanisms in place for working sustainability of resources on a local community level, marine protected areas (MPAs) being one good example (Sumaila, 1998; Weru, 1998; Silk, 2001). Increased self-governance, greater autonomy on decision making, collaborative arrangements with the different governance stakeholders, and social capital that facilitates networking internally and externally are other mechanisms that can help facilitate sustainable practices. Developing a system to build social capital through local, nationally, and internationally networks is arguably a vital component of the process if positive change is to be realized. Greater protection of fish stocks through the implementation of high seas MPAs and the curtailing of interceptor commercial fisheries would provide protection for recovering stocks. Building social capital that moves beyond the local and looks at how to facilitate trust networks on a regional, national, and international level with the different investor groups could provide constructive guidance on how to create a viable infrastructure for governance of 109 marine fisheries. Recognition of traditional knowledge systems and the merging of them with government science may be one of the most important factors to consider. The two different approaches to understanding fish patterns and behaviours are radically different and there is a noticeable level of skepticism on both sides about the value of each other's knowledge base. Traditional knowledge is premised upon an oral history that passes on intergenerational information compared to science that relies on modern stock assessment schemes and sophisticated technologies. While science has much to offer fisheries management, it has been noted that the rigidity of state fisheries science often precludes the possibility of a fast response to a crisis in the resource (McGoodwin, 1990). There is often the capability on a local level to see changes in the status of a fish stock based on a wealth of historical knowledge (Neis et al, 1999). Research that has documented declining catches of the fixed gear inshore fisheries in association with increased landings by trawler fleets, suggests that greater attention to inshore landings and catch rates could potentially provide an early warning system for stock decline (see Neis' argument about the latent bias in stock assessments that rely on commercial trawler catch rates, 1992). Several of the interviews I conducted touched on the issue of discrepancies and tensions that exist between the knowledge of DFO scientists and Petty Harbour fishers. Petty Harbour fishers believe that there were always two stocks of cod that migrated through the community: one in the early summer and another that came in the fall. The fish differed in size, color, and seasonal habits, thus leading to this conclusion. They also believed that the fish came from two different directions: the summer stock from the north, and the fall stock from the south. During the 1990's tagging experiments were conducted throughout Newfoundland, and Petty Harbour fishers state that 'their' fish (DFO management zone 3Lj) were showing up in Placentia Bay (DFO management zone 3Psc) and vice versa. Their concern was that while the commercial fishery of Petty Harbour was closed down, there remained an active commercial fishery for cod in Placentia Bay. The fact of whether there are two different stocks is not really at the crux of this issue. What concerns fishers in Petty Harbour is the contention that Northern cod does not migrate across management zones into an area where there remains a commercial 110 fishery. The fishers I interviewed agreed that the tagging experiments were the most productive of the DFO initiatives because for the first time they had concrete proof about the migratory patterns of their cod that had been talked about intergenerationally. However, the tagging experiments in Petty Harbour were shut down with no explanation from DFO after only two years. These experiments continued on for several years in many different communities (Bratty and Healy, 2003). The perception of the fishers I spoke was that it was terminated because DFO didn't want them to know that their fish were moving back and forth between two different areas, one that was permanently closed while the other was still being commercially fished. It has been acknowledged in a study that examined years worth of tagging data, that the fish of management zone 3L (3Lf, 3Lj, and 3Lq) showed substantial movement into the 3Psc zone (Bratty and Healy, 2003), thus confirming what Petty Harbour fishers believed in the past, and also what the tagging experiments were suggesting. Possibly the most interesting point here is that the tagging started out as a joint effort between fishers and scientists to monitor fish but it appears that the system broke down within a couple of years. I was unable to locate DFO's rationale for stopping the tagging program in Petty Harbour after just two years. The truth will probably never be known but what is apparent, is that trust broke down between the two groups. This is important for two reasons: it highlights the fact that both systems of knowledge have valuable contributions to bring to the table with respect to resource management, and it also identifies that ultimately, establishing social capital in the form of trust and networks that extend beyond the community is important. The study of social capital and how it can impact community sustainability is a concern for local governments, policy makers, social researchers, and international governance organizations, yet in many instances, individual species at risk and ecosystem destruction is not adequately addressed. Studying social capital in conjunction with sustainability and common property theory offers the potential for a clearer understanding of directions that can be taken to effect positive change. There are several dilemmas that face resource dependent communities: there has been disempowerment at the local level, resource depletion often by external extractive forces, and the reality of a rapidly changing world where small communities are not accounted for on the global corporate and political agenda. 111 Many communities are often left with no apparent alternatives other than tourism, a panacea that was a widely cited solution in Newfoundland in the wake of the 1992 moratorium. To this day tourism holds a prominent position in the Petty Harbour's development plan and while it has proven to provide beneficial economic returns to many small communities, it is not necessarily a substitute for the lost economy of a destroyed natural resource. Alternative industries are always welcome in any economy and there will always be a sector within the community that benefits from these changes. However I would argue that alternatives such as tourism are not a viable trade off, particularly when they evolve at the expense of a natural resource. A singular focus on tourism fails to address the need for ecosystem regeneration, and the far-reaching socio-economic and cultural losses to the community. People throughout Petty Harbour, not only the fishers I spoke with, but many others including the wives of fishers, and the grown children, talked lengthily about the changes to their community, the loss of the only life style they had known, the need to move to the mainland to look for work, and the breakdown of the social fabric. The most frequently mentioned change noted was that neighbours don't talk to each other anymore the way they used to, people keep to themselves. There appears to be a growing sense of social isolation within the community, something that was not apparent when the fishery was the active hub of the community that most social activities revolved around for several months of the year. I argue that the pro-active processes of determining sustainability should include a detailed analysis of not only of the quantitative indicators, but those that are being lost, such as the erosion of this type of social cohesion. Future Directions and Potential Solutions Restoration of resource dependent community economies will require dramatic fisheries reform. If the reform is to be effective, it will require something much more than fine- tuning current management schemes, stock assessment, and modifications to fishing technologies. Michael Sutton (1998) argues it will require public awareness and involvement such as was seen with the pressures exerted to bring about the ivory ban, or stop the commercial whale hunt. He discusses the need to reduce what he calls "the footprint of northern fleets" (p 130) on the fisheries of developing countries. The sequential exploitation of stocks (Berkes, 1989), otherwise referred to as fishing down the food chain (Pauly et al, 1998) has witnessed the systematic fishing out of prime species, and is undermining whole ecosystems at this time, not just individual stocks 112 (Worm and Myers, 2003). Not only have stocks such as the Northern cod been pushed to the brink of extinction, the integrity of many of the world's larger marine ecosystems (LMEs) have been compromised (Sherman et al, 1993; Myers and Worm, 2003; Frank et al, 2005). Evidence supports the idea that local resource user groups may be best positioned to monitor different aspects of their ecosystem and provide a more current overview of what is happening to an environment or a fish stock (Pinkerton, 2002: 163). Fishers of Newfoundland have had a lengthy history of implementing community regulations that dictate a range of privileges and behaviours from who gets what fishing berths to the type of gear one can use. In Petty Harbour social capital appears to have empowered the community to an extent through collective activism and protectionism of fish resources. The critical element that arguably requires reconstructing is the way that management of fisheries is market driven with allocations, predominately to industry of TACs, these being implemented through the ITQ system (Imperial and Yandle, 2005). Parzival Copes (1998) points out that in recent times, fisheries rationalization became the order of the day, noting that the neoclassical theoretical approach to fisheries uses a narrow range of efficiency considerations to dictate the management of fisheries. This neglects to address biological sustainability and social equity for communities with historical user rights (Copes, 1998: 891). One of the key results of this was the privatization of fish resources through a system of catch allocations which resulted in individual transferable quotas (ITQ). Copes (1998) points out that the flaw with the ITQ privatization system is that fish are fugitive, and therefore cannot be "segregated, identified, and assigned" to specific owners (Copes, 1998: 893). In spite of research showing that communities with historical property rights had sophisticated management systems to regulate natural resource extraction, states have invoked the myth of economic efficiency to introduce privatization schemes. The theory with ITQs is that they would circumvent the types of problems that economists have argued are inherent in open access to common property regimes. This assumption still commands a strong presence in the world, and ITQs have been promoted as having the potential to provide "an ideal framework for extending the scope of co-management" (Holm et al, 1998: 124). The ITQ system has provided tradable rights to a very limited group, while excluding 113 those with a lengthy history of attachment to the fish stocks being allocated (Palsson and Helgason, 1996; Davis, 1996; Copes, 1997; Copes, 1998). This has resulted in a concentrated accumulation of wealth and power to a limited number while the smaller quota holders are marginalized (Palsson and Helgason, 1996). As well, the ITQ system has been vulnerable to serious externalities such as high-grading, discarding, data fouling, and quota busting, all of which have been attributed with contributing to the demise of fish stocks (Steele and Anderson, 1997; Silvestre and Pauly, 1997; Copes, 1998). Privatization as seen in the ITQ system has not worked with resource management of fishes; it has not provided economic protection to communities that arguably have de facto fishing rights and it has not provided protection to the resource. It has been more reflective of the model that Stephen Bunker (1984) proposes 'modes of extraction', whereby imbalances are perpetuated and extractive appropriation leads to increased wealth for the productive core, in this case multinational fishing companies, at the expense of both the natural and socio-economic systems of local extractive economies. At this time there is no state that has effectively figured out how to manage common property resources, providing appropriate stewardship that would meet the standards set by the Bruntland Report on sustainability. Industry has proven itself to be consistently concerned only with expansionism and exploitation that directs what I refer to as 'false profits' into the hands of a select few, at the expense of communities with historical attachment and the fish ecosystems upon which they have depended. I use the expression false profits to point out that the general ledger in fisheries exploitation has consistently neglected to factor in destruction of fish stocks or lost community economies on the balance sheets. Science, by its own admission does not have a time proven effective stock assessment and management capability (Steele et al, 1992). Add to this the fact that large scale industrial technologies have negatively impacted many of the world's marine fish stocks, and to a large extent the ecosystems they inhabit (Safina, 1995; Kurien, 1995). The conclusion that one is obliged to come to with this information is that fisheries management (national and international), the science that investigates fish stocks, the political economy of resource exploitation, and the technologies employed in modern fisheries all need to be revolutionized. Alternative solutions have been proposed to the ITQ system, one of which is the possibility that communities could be allocated 'territorial use rights in fisheries' (TURFs) 114 that would be co-managed in part by community stewardship (Copes, 1997: 6). In Canada, the pressures on government resulting from the legal processes and implications of treaty negotiations with First Nations have led to a wide range of agreements that see shared management responsibilities over fish resources (Pinkerton and Weinstein, 1995). A detailed study of the complex issues involved in fisheries management concluded that community based management and co-management have much to offer in terms of potential sustainability of resource (Pinkerton and Weinstein, 1995). Stewardship of the resource is viewed as a critical component of this. There are communities throughout the world that where people have combined stewardship through good management practices that provided some assurance of resource sustainability. The willingness and ability of different communities throughout the world to take on management responsibilities has been noted. An example of this is the Solomon Islands the isolated people of Onteng Java who depend on marine resources for both cash and subsistence support (Yeeting, 2000). They voluntarily developed their own marine protected areas (MPAs) which they open and close according to their economic needs: when there is a shortage of food or the occurrence of unusual expenses the community will temporarily open the MPA (Yeeting, 2000). Policy advisors are seeking ways to restore resources and likewise the economic health of communities with historical attachment. There is already a growing body of work on forestry dependent communities that examines some of the ways in work social capital, through community governance, can move a community towards more sustainable practices. In her study of forestry communities, Elinor Ostrom (2001) notes that there are several attributes relevant both to the resource and to the appropriators, that if present, will indicate a greater likelihood of the existence or emergence of self-regulating associations. With respect to the resource she cites the following as being important factors affecting local organization: the resource must have a somewhat healthy status, ongoing assessment of this status must be readily available and inexpensive, there must be a predictable flow of resource units, and the system must be small enough that appropriators are able to develop a working knowledge of boundaries and internal microenvironments. With regards to appropriators, individuals must believe that they will benefit, that the investment is reasonable in relationship to future benefits, that trust and reciprocity are present, and resource users should have a shared understanding of the resource. 115 It has been suggested that the shifts in forest management from sustainable yield to sustainable forest management provides a viable alternate approach to forestry because the latter involves a wider range of values, meaningful community participation, and acknowledgement of the connection to other social institutions (Treseder and Krogman, 1999: 794). Aboriginal groups in British Columbia are engaged in many processes that are helping to facilitate the formation of new institutions for alternative forest management, and pursuit of culturally and community specific goals. Can similar types of alternatives be proposed for coastal fishing communities? New institutions of governance could employ local management schemes, privilege local knowledge, and mandate the use of lower impact, alternative technologies while the use of others are either dramatically curtailed or in some cases perhaps banned. Understanding how social capital works on the community level and the contributions that it can make towards sustainable practices can provide partial solutions to these problems. It was suggested that perhaps there are contradictions within the model of social capital serving the community, because there are different forms of it serving different factions of the community. One example of this would be those in Petty Harbour who are firmly committed to the idea of having a Newfoundland version of Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, one of Canada's most popular eastern tourist spots. In this scenario, the wharves of the communities would be converted to gift shops and upgraded twine stores where fishers would knit twine and fillet fish and tourists would have the opportunity to see the 'ways things were' in this community. Social capital works for different people or groups in different ways. This can be seen in the literature that shows how weak ties can best serve and individual when trying to locate employment due to the fact that they are exposed to a greater amount of information. On the other hand, social capital strong network ties has proven to be beneficial to risk activism where trust in close relationships and leadership is a critical component of the decision to engage. The various studies of social capital clearly point out that it is mobilized by a broad range of people for many different applications. I am going to suggest that social capital as a community asset, and the way it can serve the community not just the individual can be extended to the idea of building social capital between organizations, and likewise the collective power of organizations to lobby states and international groups. It has been noted that another area where support for environmental issues takes place is that of transnational activism. Next to human rights issues, the greatest numbers of global 116 social movements underway at this time are involved with environmental issues (Carter, 2005). Some of these groups such as Greenpeace-Australia and World Wildlife Fund- Canada (VVWF) work on fisheries and forestry issues that extend beyond national borders. While in theory transnational activism can empower local groups, it has been identified that it is the role of local networks including the community membership that ultimately determines the effectiveness of any activism (Rodrigues, 2004). Forming partnerships both with established institutions of governance and organizations such as the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), a group based in India whose sole purpose is to work towards the establishment of equitable, sustainable fisheries in the small-scale artisanal sector, represents another form of social capital that can be mobilized for communities like Petty Harbour. Communities are well situated to provide good governance that cannot be handled by individuals, other levels of authority, or free markets (Bowles and Gintis, 2002). The formation of cooperatives, community monitoring and self-regulating programs, and collective problem solving are a few examples. They have unique governance capacities that arise from having high stakes in the status of the common property resources of the community. There is no question that through local knowledge and what I have referred to as a sense of ownership that includes the component of protectionism, some unique characteristics of common property management existed in Petty Harbour. The fact that social capital has apparently been instrumental in helping to enable the collective activism lends strength to the argument that management of fish resources should be more inclusive of communities like Petty Harbour. There needs to be a greater allocation of power, governance, the implementation of knowledge for management purposes, and in the decision making processes. Small rural communities, many of which exist as single resource economies, are vulnerable to the global market forces. While they face many problems such as out migration and resource depletion, they do have the advantage of high levels social capital which in turn creates a solid basis for collective activism (Onyx, 2005). Understanding how social capital is sustained and mobilized has potential to contribute towards recovery and future sustainability of fish resources. Future research could be on the development of indicators that can accurately reflect, describe, and provide measurements of activities that are directed towards protectionism of common property resources. The draw back of such a small single case study is that the findings are not 117 substantive enough to qualify as conclusive theoretical findings. They do however suggest that further exploration would be warranted, possibly through a larger, comparative study. Conclusion: The conclusions of this study are supported by research that has been conducted on resource dependent communities throughout the world (Putnam et al, 1993; Woolcock, 1998; Krishna, 2002; Dale and Onyx, 2005). There has been a failure to mitigate the problem of resource depletion and it has been argued that only by employing an interdisciplinary approach to resource management will the goal of sustainable development start to be met (Hollings et al, 2000; Dale, 2005; Onyx, 2005). Social capital is essential for rural communities because the social, ecological, and economic imperatives of sustainable development are most likely to occur through collective activism which is an outcome of social capital (Dale and Onyx, 2005). The integration of complex and sweeping concepts such as social capital, indicators of sustainability, and common property theory presents a difficult challenge, but one that arguably is essential in the ongoing struggle to try and reverse the losses of rural resource dependent communities and the natural systems they have relied on. I question whether community sustainability can be examined in isolation from issues such as the technologies used, or the political economy in which they are embedded. I suggest that they are all inextricably linked and that solutions will only be located through a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach to the problem of resource degradation. My findings support the current theoretic premise that social capital plays a critical role in sustainable development if by definition sustainable development encompasses both the socio-economic survival of communities and the survival of the ecosystems they are dependent on. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that social capital (networks and trust) be extended conceptually to the idea of partnerships between governance bodies, acting somewhat like bridging social capital. What has been shown with this research is that many of the prerequisites of managing local common property have existed in Petty Harbour: social capital in the form of networks and trust, activism, and leadership, all of these attributes contributing to local self governance of migrating fish resources. If the interception of migrating fishes by large scale industrial technologies was substantially curtailed, and stocks provided with 118 respite for reproduction and protection on their high seas migratory routes, fisheries would have a greater chance of recovering. Migrating stocks could then be fished with more traditional, selective, lower impact technologies, by community based coastal fishers with lengthy historical attachment to the resource. This in turn would lead to economic recovery of fishing communities. The development of governance networks that bring together all levels of management is important. Knowing that fish are 'fugitive' (Copes, 1998), and that this presents a unique set challenges from a management perspective, tells us that there will always be a requirement for systems of governance that extend beyond the local. If we know that common property institutions break down when outside forces create open access systems and displace indigenous management ones (Holling et al, 2000: 353-355), can we use this knowledge as leverage to support alternative strategies that focus on restoring community governance, social capital, and the restoration of common property institutions? One might argue that this a big leap in faith; however, if one examines the work that is presently taking place in First Nations communities, solutions are being located that find some support on various levels (Pinkerton, 2002). There are tangible and viable multi-faceted solutions that can be built through cooperation and the formation of trust networks to engage all local, national, and international stakeholders. The implementation of high seas MPAs could provide corridors of protection for migrating fishes. The reduction of high impact technologies that negatively impact single species, marine ecosystems, and benthic habitats can be limited. Recognition and support for local management schemes can be supported regionally, nationally and internationally. Social capital, as an inherent rural community asset that given the right catalysts, can become a powerful tool to effect positive change, may possibly be the strongest contribution that single resource dependent communities have to offer sustainability. 119 Bibliography Acheson, James M. 1987. The Lobster Fiefs Revisited: Economic and Ecological Effects of Territoriality in Maine Lobster Fishing, in The Question of the Commons, eds. McCay, Bonnie J. and James M. Acheson. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. pp 37-65 Anon. 1985. Atlantic Fishing Licence Directory, 1985. Canadian Special Publication, Fisheries Aquatic Science 79: 931 pages. Bartley, Devin M. 1995. Policy and Socioeconomic Aspects of Aquatic Biological Diversity Conservation, in Protection of Aquatic Biodiversity: Proceedings of the World Congress Fisheries. eds. Philipp, David P. Epifanio, John M., Marsden, Ellen, et al. Athens, Greece 1992. London: Science Publishers Inc. pp 88-102 Beckley T.M. 1995. "Community Stability and the Relationship Between Economic and Social Well-Being in Forest-Dependent Communities." in Society and Natural Resources 8(3): 261-266. Beckley, Thomas, John Parkins, and Richard Stedman. 2002. "Indicators of Forest- Dependent Community Sustainability: The Evolution of Research." The Forestry Chronicle 78(5): 626-636. Berkes, Fikret. 1987. "Common-Property Resource Management: Indian and Cree Fisheries in Subartic Canada, in A Question of the Commons, Bonnie J. McCay and James M. Acheson. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. 69-91. Berkes, Fikret. Ed. 1989. Common Porperty resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. London: Belhaven. Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding and Carl Folke, Eds. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Bess, Randall. 2000. New Zealand Maori: Claims to Fisheries Resources. Paper presented to IIFET, Oregon State University. Binet, D. and E. Marchal. 1993. "The Large Marine Ecosystem of Shelf Areas in the Gulf of Guinea: Long-Term Variability Induced by Climatic Changes" in Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability, eds. K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold, 104-138. Washington, DC: AAAS Publications. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. "The Forms of Capital", in Handbook of Theory and Research in Sociology of Education. Ed. John G. Richardson. New York: Grenwald Press. 241-255. Bowles, Samual and Herbert Gintis. 2002. Social Capital And Community Governance The Economic Journal 112 (483), F419—F436. Bratty, J. and B. P. Healey 2003. "Exploitation rates and movements of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in NAFO Divs. 3KL based on tagging experiments conducted during 1997-2002. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research document 2003/032. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. 120 Brehm, John and Wendy Rahn. 1997. "Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital", in American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 999-1023. Brody, Hugh. 2000. The Other Side of Eden: hunter, farmers, and the shaping of the world. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. Brown, Robert C. 1998. "Community-based cooperative management: renewed interest in an old paradigm" in Reinventing Fisheries Management, Eds. T.J. Pitcher and D. Pauly, 185-193. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bunker, Stephen G. 1984. "Modes of Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Progressive Underdevelopment of an Extreme Periphery: The Brazilian Amazon, 1600-1980", in American Journal of Sociology 89 (5): 1017-1064. Cadigan, Sean. 2003. "The Moral Economy of Retrenchment and Regeneration in the History of Rural Newfoundland" in Retrenchment and Regeneration in Rural Newfoundland, Ed. Reginald Byron. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc. 14-42. Carter, Angela. 2005. "Settler Environmental Activism: A Transnational/National Paradox?" For the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, London, Ontario, June 4,2005. Draft Submission. Clarke, Matthew. 2003. "The Professionalization of Inshore Fishers", in Retrenchment and Regeneration in Rural Newfoundland. Ed. Reginald Byron. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc. 134-157. Coffe, Hilde and Benny Geys. 2006. Community Heterogeneity: A Burden for the Creation of Social Capital? Social Science Quarterly 87:s1, 1053-1072. Coleman, James S. 1994. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Copes, Parzival. 1998. "Adverse Impacts of Individual Quota Systems in Small-Scale Fisheries: What are the Positive Alternatives?" in Managing Our Fisheries, Managing Ourselves. Eds. L. Loucks, A.T. Charles, and M. Butler, 23-30. Proceedings of Symposium on Fisheries That Work: New directions in the North Atlantic. Copes, Parzival. 1999. "Common-property fishing rights: Coastal Resources for whom?" Samudra Report, 23: 14-19. Costanza, R., J. Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland, and R.Nargaard. Eds. 1997. Ecological Economics. Florida, USA: CRC Press LLC. Dale, Ann. 2005. "Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: is There a Relationship?" in A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. Eds. Ann Dale and Jenny Onyx. Canada: UNIpresses. 13-32. Davis, Anthony. 1996. Barbed wire and bandwagons: a comment on ITQ fisheries management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 6: 97-107. De Alessi, Michael. 1997. "Technologies for Sequestering and Monitoring Ocean Property", in Fish or Cut Bait! The Case for Individual Transferable Quotas in the Salmon Fishery of British Columbia. Eds. Jones, Laura and Michael Walker. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute. pp 125-150 121 De Groot, S.J. 1984. "The Impact of Bottom Trawling on Benthic Fauna of the North Sea", in Ocean Management 9. pp 177-190. den Otter, Michael A. and Thomas M. Beckley. 2002. This is paradise: community sustainability indicators for the Western Newfoundland Model Forest. Fredericton Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Atlantic Forestry Centre. Diani, Mario. 2001. "Social Capital as Social Movement Outcome", in Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Eds Bob Edwards, Michael W. Foley, and Mario Diani. Hanover and London: Tufts University, University Press of New England. 207-218. Diegues, Antonio Carlos. 1998. "Social Movements and the Remaking of the Commons in the Brazilian Amazon" in Privatizing Nature: Political Struggles for the Global Commons. Ed. Michael Goldman. London: Pluto Press. 54-75. Doeringer, Peter B. and David G. Terkla. 1995. Troubled Waters: Economic Structure, Regulatory Reform, and Fisheries Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Essington, Timothy E., Anne H. Beaudreau, and John Wiedenmann. 2006. "Fishing through marine food webs", in PNAS Vol 103 (9): 3171-3175. Fairlie, S., M. Hagler, and B. O'Riordan, 1995. "The Politics of Overfishing", The Ecologist 25, 2/3, 46-73. Field, John. 2003. Social capital. London: Routledge. Finlayson, Alan Christopher. 1994. Fishing for Truth: a sociological analysis of northern cod stock assessments from 1977-1990. Sr. John's, NL: Institute for Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Foley, W. Michael, Bob Edwards, and Mario Diani. 2001. "Social Capital Reconsidered", in Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Eds Bob Edwards, Michael W. Foley, and Mario Diani. Hanover and London: Tufts University, University Press of New England. 225- 234. Frank, Kenneth T., Brian Petrie, Jae S. Choi, and William C. Leggett. 2005. "Trophic Cascades in a Formerly Cod-Dominated Ecosystem" Science June Vol 308: 1621-1623 Franklin, Ursula M. 1990. The real world of technology. Toronto: Anansi Gale, Richard P. and Sheila M. Cordray. 1994. "Making Sense of Sustainability: Nine Answers to 'What Should Be Sustained?", in Rural Sociology, 59 (2): 311-332. Garcia, Serge. 1996. "The Precautionary Approach to Fisheries and its implications for Fisheries Research, Technology and Management: An Updated Review", in Precautionary Approach to Fisheries — Part 2: Scientific Papers. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1-63. Goldsmith, J. 1996. "The Winners and the Losers", in The Case Against the Global Economy — and a Turn Toward the Local, eds. Mander, J., and E. Goldsmith. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. 171-179. Gordon, H. Scott. 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery" in Journal of Political Economy 62 (2): 124-142. Griffith, David and Manual Valdes Pizzini. 2002. Fishers at Work, Workers at Sea: a 122 Puerto Rican Journey through Labor and Refugee. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Granovetter, Mark. 1973. "The Strength of Weak Ties", in American Journal of Sociology Vol.78 Issue 6, May. 1360-1380. Grootaert, Christiaan, Deepa Narayan, Veronica Nyhan Jones and Michael Woolcock. 2004. Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Haedrich, Richard L. and Lawrence C. Hamilton. 2000. "The Fall and Future of Newfoundland's Cod Fishery", in Society & Natural Resources 13: 359-372. Hannigan, John. 1995. Environmental Sociology. New York: Routledge. Hardin, Garret. 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons", in Science 162: 1243-1248 Harris, Leslie. 1990. Independent Review of the State of the Northern Cod Stock. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Harshaw, H. W., and David T. Tindall. 2005. "Social Structure, Identities, and Values: A Network Approach to Understanding People's Relationships to Forests", in Journal of Leisure Research Vol 37, No 4: 426-449. Henderson, Hazel. 1991. "The Indicators Crisis: Toward Post-Economic Policy Tools for Post-Industrial Societies" in Paradigmes in progress: life beyond economics. Indianapolis, IN: Knowledge Systems. 147-192. Holling, C.S., Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke. 2000. "Science, Sustainability and Resource Management", in Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanism for Building Resilience. Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 342-362. Hohm, Peter, Stein Arne Rune and Bjorn Hersong. 1998. Political Attributes of Rights Based Management Systems: The Case of Individual Vessel Quotas in the Norwegian Coastal Cod Fishery, in Property Rights and Regulatory Systems in Fisheries, ed. David Symes. Oxford: Fishing News Books. 113-126. Hovgard, H. and Hans Lassan. 2000. Manual on estimation of selectivity for gillnet and longline gears in abundance surveys. Danish Agency for International Development. FAO. Hutchings, Jeffrey A. 1999. "The Biological Collapse of Newfoundland's Northern Cod", in Fishing Places, Fishing People: Traditions and Issues in Canadian Small- Scale Fisheries. Eds. Diane Newell and Rosemary Ommer. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc. 260-275. Imperial, Mark T, and Tracy Yandle. 2005. "Taking Institutions Seriously: Using the IAD Framework to Analyze Fisheries Policy" Society and Natural Resources 18: 493- 509. Jacobsen, Kurt. 2000. Technical Fouls: Democratic Dilemmas and Technological Change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Johannes, Robert E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkley: University of California Press. Junquera, S., S. Iglesias,. and E. de Cardenas. 1992. Spanish fishery of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). In 1990-91 NAFO SCR document 92/28. 123 Kirby, Michael J.L. 1983. Navigating troubled waters. A new policy for the Atlantic Fisheries. Supply & Services, Ottawa. Kirkley, James, Catherine J. Morrison Paul, Stephen Cunningham, and Joseph Catanzano 2005. "Embodied and Disembodied Technical Change in Fisheries: An Analysis of the Sete Trawl Fishery, 1985-1999", in Environmental and Resource Economics October, Vol. 29, No. 2: 191-217. Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema 1987. "Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and Barriers: Steps Towards Participations in Social Movements", in American Sociological Review Vol. 52, No. 4 (Aug): 519-531. Kodera, K. 1971. "Aimed Bottom and Midwater Trawling Techniques of Japanese Factory Stern Trawlers. Fish finding, purse seining and aimed trawling" in Modern Fishing Gear of the World 3, Ed. Hilmar Kr istjonsson, 411-419. London, England: Fishing News (Books) Ltd. Krishna, Anirudh. 2002. Active Social Capital: Tracing the Roots of Development and Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. Kurien, John. 1995."Joint Action Against Joint Ventures" in The Ecologist 25, 2/3: 115- 119. Lilly George R., P.A. Shelton, J. Brattey, N.G. Cadigan, E.F. Murphy, and D.E. Stransbury. 1999. An assessment of the cod stock in NAFO Divisions 2J+3KL. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariate: Research Document 99/42. Lin, Nan, Yang-chih Fu, and Ray-May Hsung. 2001. "The Position Generator: Measurement Techniques for Investigations of Social Capital", in Social Capital: Theory and Research. Eds. Nan Lin, Karen Cook, and Ronald S. Burt. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 57-84. Lin, Nan. 2001. "Building a Network Theory of Social Capital", in Social Capital: Theory and Research. Eds. Nan Lin, Karen Cook, and Ronald S. Burt. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 3-30. Ludell, Mark. 2001. "Environmental Action as Collective Action", in Environment and Behaviour. Oct 2001. Macnaghten, Phil and John Urry. 1998. Contested Natures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Marchak, Patricia. 1988. "What Happens When Common Property Becomes Uncommon?", in BC Studies Winter 1988-89, Number 80: 3-23. Martin, Bernard. 1998. "A fisherman's tale". Our Planet 9 (5): 25-26. Martin, Bernard and Shelley Bryant. 1996. Ancient Rights. Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's, Newfoundland. McCay, Bonnie J. and James M. Acheson, Eds. 1987. The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. McGoodwin, James. 1990. Crisis in the World's Fishery: People, Problems, and Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Morgan, Lance and Ratana Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters. Pew Science Series. 124 Washington DC: Island Press Publications Services. Murphy, Raymond. 1994. Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Myers, Ramson A. and B. Worm. 2003. "Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities", in Nature 423: 280-283. Nadasdy, Paul. 1999. "The Politics of TEK: Power and the "Integration" of Knowledge." In Arctic Anthropology Vol 36, No 1-2: 1-18. Nadeau, Solange, Bruce Shindler, and Christina Kakoyannis. 1999. "Forest Communities: New Frameworks for Assessing Sustainability." The Forestry Chronicle 75 (5):747-754. Neis, Barbara. 1992. "Fishers Ecological Knowledge and Stock Assessment in Newfoundland", in Newfoundland and Labrador Studies Vol. 8 No. 2: Neis, Barbara, Lawrence F. Felt, Richard Haedrich, and David C. Schneider. 1999. "An Interdisciplinary Method for Collecting and Integrating Fishers' Ecological Knowledge into Resource Management", in Fishing Places, Fishing People: Traditions and Issues in Canadian Small-Scale Fisheries. Eds. Dianne Newell and Rosemary E. Ommer. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 217-238. Newton, Kenneth. 2001. "Social Capital and Democracy", in Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Eds Bob Edwards, Michael W. Foley, and Mario Diani. Hanover and London: Tufts University, University Press of New England. 225-234. Novak, Joel and Karen Kampen. 1992. "Sustainable or Unsustainable Development? An Analysis of an Environmental Controversy", in Canadian Journal of Sociology. 17 (3) 249-273. OECD. 1998. Towards Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators. France: OECD Publications. O'Boyle, R. 1993. "Fisheries Management Organizations: A Study in Uncertainty" in Fishery Aquatic Science 120: 423-436. O'Connor, Brian P. and David B. Tindall. 1990. "When Defection Is Perceived As Cooperation: Attributions In A Commons Dilemma", in Journal of Psychology 124 (5): 485-494. Onyx, Jenny. 2005. Introduction, in A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. Eds. Ann Dale and Jenny Onyx. Canada: UNlpresses. 1-12. Ostrom, Elinor. 2001. "Reformulating the Commons", in Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas. Eds. Joanna Burger, Elinor Ostrom, Richard Norgaard, Davie Policansky and Bernard D. Goldstein. Washington: Island Press. 17-44. Palsson, Gisli, and Agnar Helgason. 1996. Property Rights and Practical Knowledge: The Icelandic Quota System, in Fisheries Management in Crisis. Eds Crean, Kevin and David Symes. Oxford: Fishing News Books. pp 45-60. Passy, Florence 2003. "Social Networks Matter, But How?", in Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Eds.Mario Diani and Doug McAdam. Oxford University Press, New York. 21-48. 125 Pauly, Daniel, Villy Christensen, E. Froese, and E. Torres. 1998. "Fishing down marine food webs" Science 279: 860-863. Pinkerton, Evelyn and Martin Weinstein. 1995. Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through Community-Based Management. Vancouver: A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation. Pinkerton, Evelyn. 2002. Partnerships in Management, in A Fishery Manager's Guide Book: Management Measures and Their Applications, ed Kevern Cochrane. Published by FAO. 159-173. Pitcher, Tony.J., and Chuenpagdee, R.Y. 1996. "Bycatches in Fisheries and their Impact on the Ecosystem", Fisheries Centre Research Reports. Vol 2 No 1 Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia. Portes, Alex. 1998. "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology", in Annual Review of Sociology. Vol 22: 1-24. Putnam, Robert, Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ramos, A.B., E.F. Rosel, and G. Rodriguez. 2000. Community Management and Integrated Management in the Coastal Zones: A Cuban Example. Unpublished paper presented at the Gender, Globalization, and Fisheries Conference held in Lavrock, NL, May 2000. University De Pinar Del Rio, Cuba. Report on the Task Force on Incomes and Adjustment in the Atlantic Fishery. 1993. Charting a New Course: Towards the Fishery of the Future. Ottawa, Ontario: Communications Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans. Minister of Supply and Services. Rodrigues, Maria Guadalupe Moog. 2004. "Advocating for the environment: local dimensions of transnational networks", in Environment. March 2004 Rose, George. 1997. "The trouble with fisheries science!" Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 7: 365-370. Rowe, Andrew. 1991. Effect of the Crisis in the Newfoundland Fishery on Women Who Work in the Industry. St. John's, Nfld.: Women's Policy Office, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ruohomaki, 011i-Pekka. (1999). Fishermen No More? Livelihood and Environment in Southern Thai Maritime Villages. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Company Ltd. Safina, C. (1995). "The World's Imperiled Fish" in Scientific American 273 (5): 46-53. Santos, M.N., Erzini, K., Gaspar, M.B., and Monteiro, C.C. 1997. Fantared II: a study on ghost fishing in European waters. NAFO 2001 SCR doc 01/87. Schnaiberg, Allen and Kenneth Alan Gould. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martin's Press. Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold. 1993. Large Marine Ecosystems. Washington, DC: AAAS Publications. Silk, Victoria. 1994. "Impacts of Dragger Technology on Women in the Fishing Industry" in Samudra. Vol 9. Madras, India: Nagaraj and Company. 3-6. 126 Silk, Victoria. 2001. "MPAs: process, privilege, and participation, a sociological discussion" in Economics of Marine Protected Areas. Eds. Rashid Sumaila and Jackie Alder. Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia. Silk, Victoria. 2003. The 1964 Gill-net Ban of Petty Harbour, Newfoundland Canada. Unpublished paper. Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly. 1997. Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia: an overview of key challenges and opportunities, in Status and Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia, Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly, eds. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53. pp 8-25. Sinclair, Peter R. 1988. A Question of Survival. St. John's, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic Research. Statistics Canada. 1996. Community Profiles. Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profiles. Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove Statistics Canada. 2006. Community Profiles. Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove Steele, Donald. H., Raoul Andersen, and J.M. Green. 1992. "The Managed Commercial Annihilation of Northern Cod". Newfoundland Studies 8 (1): 34-68. Steele, Donald Harold and Raoul Anderson. 1997. "The Commercial Annihilation of Northern Cod: The Fate of the 1986 and 1987 Year-Classes" in How Deep is the Ocean? Historical Essays on Canada's Atlantic Fishery Eds. James E. Candow and Carol Corbin. Sydney, Nova Scotia: University College of Cape Breton Press. 261-268. Stolle, Dietlind and Thomas R. Rochon. 2001. "Are All Associations Alike? Member Diversity, Associational Type, and the Creation of Social Capital", in Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Eds Bob Edwards, Michael W. Foley, and Mario Diani. Tufts University, London: University Press of New England. 143-156. Sumaila, Rashid. 1998. Protected marine reserves as hedges against uncertainty: an economist's perspective. In Reinventing Fisheries Management, eds. T.J. Pitcher, and D. Pauly, 303-309. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sutton, Michael. 1998. Harnessing market forces and consumer power in favor of sustainable fisheries, in Reinventing Fisheries Management, eds. Pitcher, T.J., Hart, P. and Pauly, D. London: Kluwer Academic Publications. 125-135. Swezey, S. L., and R. F. Heizer. 1977. Ritual management of salmonid fish resources in California. Journal of California Anthropology 4:6-29. Tindall, D.B. 2002. "Social Networks, Identification and Participation in an Environmental Movement: Low-Medium Cost Activism Within the British Columbia Wilderness Preservation Movement." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 39 (4): 413-452. Tilly, Charles. 2005. Trust and Rule. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tisdall, Simon. 1993. "Canadians overdraw on the Grand Banks," Guardian Weekly, 17 October, International News: page 7. Varughese, George, and Elinor Ostrom. 2001. "The Contested Roles of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal." World 127 Development 29(5): 747-765. Walters, Carl. 1998. "Designing fisheries management systems that do not depend upon accurate stock assessment" in Reinventing Fisheries Management. Eds. Tony J. Pitcher, P. Hart, and Daniel Pauly, 279-288. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Weru, S.D.M. 1998. "Marine Conservation in Kenya", in Large Marine Ecosystems of the Indian Ocean: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management. eds. K. Sherman, E.N. Okemwa, and M.J. Ntiba, 353-359. USA: Blackwell Science Inc. Woolcock, Michael. 1998."Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework" in Theory and Society 27 (2): 151- 208. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1997. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27-66. Wright, Miriam Carol. 1992. The Smile of Modernity: The State and the Modernization of the Canada Atlantic Fishery 1945-1970. Unpublished thesis, Queen's University. Wright, Miriam Carol. 2000. A fishery for modern times: the state and the industrialization of the Newfoundland fishery, 1934-1968. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Wuthnow, Robert. 2004. "Trust As An Aspect of Social Structure", in Self, Social Structure, and Beliefs. Eds. Jeffrey C. Alexander, Gary T. Marx, and Christine L. Williams. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 145-167. Yeeting, Being. 2000. International Coral Reef Symposium Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. England: Sage Publications. 128 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Thesis Questionnaire Participant # ^ (Please leave blank) Sustainability in a Newfoundland Fishing Community Survey Questionnaire Participants: Resident Fishers of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove (PHMC) Completion of this survey questionnaire is voluntary. The information contained will be used in a master's thesis and possibly an academic journal publication. There are no identifying features on this survey, no names, and any reports and documents produced by my research will contain only summarized statistics further ensuring confidentiality. In order to ensure confidentiality, the information you provide will be coded under a `participant number' (see top of following page). Completion and return of this survey will be taken to mean that you are providing consent to participate in the survey. I would like to thank you for participating in this research project and at this time remind you that both your participation is completely voluntary, and the responses you provide will remain completely confidential. You are not obligated to answer any questions or discuss anything that you are not comfortable with. Further to this, should any topic of relevance come up that you think is missing from the questionnaire and should be addressed, I welcome your input. The focus of my questions will be on the history of the community, the fishery, fishing practices and knowledge, community ties, and involvement in community organizations. When my research is completed, a summary report outlining the results will be made available to you. If you have any questions, or concerns, or if you would like to complete this survey questionnaire in person, please contact me at 745-3124. 129 Section 1 1) Please state how old you were on your last birthday. 2) Please circle your gender:^a) female^b) male 3) Do you live in Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove (PHMC)? Please circle the right answer. a)^yes^b)^no 4) Please circle the answer that describes your marital status. a) single^b) married^c) separated ^ d) divorced^e) other 5) If you have a spouse, does your spouse's family live in PHMC? a) yes^b) no^c) not applicable 6) Do you have any children? a) yes^b) no 7) Do you have extended family living here (aunts, grandchildren, cousins)? a) yes^b) no 8) For how many generations has your family been living in PHMC? a) 1 ^ b) 2-3^c) > 3 ^ d) not sure^e) not applicable 130 9) What is your present occupation? a) fisher^b) retired fisher c) professional trade^d) other 10) Please circle the answer that best describes how many people live in your household at this time? a) 1-2^b) 3-4^c) 5-6^d) > 6 Section 2 11) Below are listed a variety of activities that people engage in order to obtain a concession from government or achieve a community goal. Please indicate your level of agreement on how effective the actions listed below are. Please^check^your^level^of agreement^for^each^of^the following: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree No Opinion 11 A Peaceful Demonstrations 11 B^Letter Writing 11 C^Meeting^with^government officials 1 1D^Strikes I 11E^Legal challenges 11 F^Non-peaceful demonstrations 11 G Meeting with media-obtaining media coverage 131 12) Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: in the past, the fishers of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove have successfully faced challenges and stood their ground against adversarial pressures, such as fish marketing problems or threats to its protected area. a) strongly agree b) agree c) disagree d) strongly disagree e) unknown 13) The following list a series of activities that people engage in when they are trying to create social or political change. Please check either yes or no for the following questions. ACTIVITY YES NO 13A Have you participated in any demonstration(s) in the past concerning the fishery, or your community, or some other issue of importance to you? 13B Have you ever taken part in a letter writing campaign? 13C^Do^you^attend^important^public^meetings^in^your community? 13D Have you ever petitioned a local politician for change in your community? 13E Have you ever participated in a protest that resulted in the police being brought in? 13F Have you ever taken part in organizing any type of community activity (example: fundraiser, sports day)? 13G Have you ever run for a position with a community I organization (for example: church, fishers, recreation)? 13H Have you ever been interviewed by the media (TV or radio) about an issue affecting you, or your community, or the fishery? 1 132 14) Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty-Harbour- Maddox Cove was a politically active community prior to the 1992 moratorium. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) unknown 15) Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty Harbour- Maddox Cove is politically active community today. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) not sure Section 3 16) How long has your family been involved with the commercial fishery? a) 1-2 generations^b) 3-4 generations^c) over 4 generations d) not applicable 17) Please circle the response that best describes who you think should have the final say over matters affecting fishing rights in your community. a) federal government ^ b) provincial government^c) the community d) community and provincial government^e) community and federal government 0 unsure 18) Please circle the level of agreement with the following statement: Your children should have the right to fish on their community's recognized fishing grounds. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree e) no opinion 133 19) Please circle the response that best describes your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove should be consulted about changes in fishing policies that will directly affect the fishers and fishery of the community. a) strongly agree b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree e) no opinion 20) Please circle the response that reflects your level of agreement with the following statement: Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove has the capability to manage its fish resources. a) high capability^b) some capability^c) very little capability^d) no capability 21) Have the fishers of your community been involved in managing local fish resources in the past? a) yes^b) no^c) not sure 22) The seven statements below describe the ways your community may have had control and input into fish management practices in the past. Please check the column that reflects your level of agreement with each statement. Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove has had: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Sure 22A Control over the gear types used in community 22B Control over who fishes in PHMC 22C Control over fish sales in the community 22D Control over daily quotas landed 22E Able to^influence DFO decisions 22F Control over the quality of fish 22G Control over fish berths 134 23) Can you name any times when local fishers have collectively taken control of, and resolved, a fishing problem? a) yes^b) no^c) not sure Discuss what type of problem (Optional) 24) Does your community have any protective legislation that is specific to the recognized boundaries of your fishing grounds? a) yes^b) no^c) unknown If yes, please explain. 25) Please circle the response that best reflects your agreement with the following statement: Today your community has control over and input into fishing management practices that affect your community. a) strongly agree b) agree c) disagree d) strongly disagree e) no opinion 26) Please circle the answer that best describes your level of agreement with the following statement: If this community could have controlled offshore fishing in the past, there would still be a cod fishery today. 135 a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree e) no opinion Discuss (Optional) Section 4 27) The following are statements that reflect different ideas about what characteristics a leader has. Please check off your level of agreement with each of the following statements. A leader is... Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disa ree Not Sure 27A A leader is someone who works to make the community a better place to live in. I ; 27B A leader is someone who^is^recognized^as^a spokesperson^for^the community I ,_ 27C A leader takes control in a crisis I -4 --I 27D A leader can be called on for help 27E A leader must have good communication skills 27F Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove^has^leadership according^to^the^above i characteristics. 136 28) Are there any individuals (one or more) in your community who are often identified as spokespersons for the community by either the media or other groups and individuals outside of the community? a) yes b) no c) not sure 29) Please describe your relationship to the following types of people in Petty Harbour- Maddox Cove. You can check one or more boxes, for example, if you know a community leader well, and you also consider yourself to be one, you would check off both the `Good Friend' column and the 'Myself' column. I know someone who is: Acquaintance Good Friend Relative Myself 29A^Recognized^in^my community as a leader 29B^A^municipal politician (town councilor) 29C A religious leader (eg Priest) 29D^An^organizer^of community events 29E^A spokesperson for this community 29F Working to better the community 29G^Who is a board member^for^a^local organization 30) If your community has a leader (s), do they have the support of the community? a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree e) not sure 137 31) If your community has a leader, do they serve the interest of the whole community? a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree d) strongly disagree e) unsure 32) Do you think of yourself as a community leader? a) yes^b) no^c) at times 33) How would you describe the level of leadership in your community prior to the 1992 Northern cod moratorium? a) strong leadership b) average leadership^c) poor leadership d) no leadership 34) How would you describe the level of leadership in your community since the 1992 Northern cod moratorium? a) strong leadership^b) average leadership^c) poor leadership^d) no leadership Discuss (Optional) 138 Section 5 35) Please indicate any community organizations that you belonged to prior to the 1992 Northern cod moratorium and your level of involvement. Organization I was not a member of this group I was an inactive member of this group I was an active member of this group I was a very active member with this group 35A Church 35B Fishermen 35C Council 35D School 35E Other 36) Do you think the community benefits from the existence of the following community organizations? Organization Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Sure 36A Church 36B Fishermen 36C Council 36D School 36E Other 139 37) Do some individuals benefit from community organizations more than others? a) strongly agree b) agree c) disagree d) strongly disagree e) unsure 38) Has there ever been a local problem or disaster where collectively, people from the community have pooled their time and/or resources to help out? a) yes^b) no^c) not sure Discuss (Optional) 39) Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: When a family has a serious crisis in this community neighbors tend to help out. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) not sure 40) The following questions ask what community organizations, if any, you currently belong to and what best describes your level of involvement. Please check of any organizations that you are involved with in the response column that reflects your level of activity as a member. Organization I am not a member of this group I am an inactive member of this group I am an active member of this group I am a very active member with this group 40A Church 40B Fishermen 40C Council 40D School 1 40E Other 140 41) Please circle your level of agreement with the following statement: Your community as a safe place both for yourself and your children. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) not sure 42) Please circle the answer that best describes your level of agreement with this statement: Your community provides the same level of personal safety today for adults and children as it did prior to the 1992 moratorium. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) not sure 43) Please indicate the level to which you agree with the following statement: Prior to the 1992 moratorium fishers could rely on help from other fishers if they had problems (boat or gear) either on land or while at sea? a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) not sure 44) Please circle the answer that best describes your level of agreement with this statement: Since the 1992 moratorium fishers can still rely on help from other fishers if they have boat or gear problems either on land or while at sea. a) strongly agree^b) agree^c) disagree^d) strongly disagree^e) not sure Discuss (Optional)^ 141 Level of education 45) What level of formal education did you obtain? a) primary school b) junior high school (grade 7-9) c) some high school (incomplete) d) high school completed (grade 12) e) some university f) trades school certification g) university degree completed Section 6: Fishing: Fish Knowledge, and Fish Work History 46) What age were you when you started fishing? 47)^In the following chart, please check off the species you fished prior to the 1992 Moratorium and rate them in terms of their economic importance to you (either as bait or direct sale) with 1 being the lowest value and 5 the highest value. It is okay to use a value more than once, for example if two species were of similar economic value. Species 1 Low $$ Value 2 3 4 5 High $$ Value 47A Cod 47B Capelin 47C Salmon 47D Lobster 47E Squid 47F Lump Fish 47G Other 142 48) What types of species do you fish now and can you rate them in order of economic importance with 1 being the lowest value and 5 the highest value. Species 1 Low $$ Value 2 3 4 5 High $$ Value 48A Cod 48B Capelin 48C Salmon 48D Lobster 48E Squid 48F Crab 48G Lump Fish 48H Other 49) Please check the box that describes the type and size of boat(s) you used during your fishing years prior to the 1992 moratorium? (< = less than, > = more than) Boat Type Yes No Unsure 49A Fibreglass - 22' or less ( 6.5 metres or less) 49B Fibreglass - over 22' to 30' (6.5- 9 metres) 49C Fibreglass - over 30' (> 9 metres) 49D Wood Hull — 22' or less (6.5 metres or less) 49E Wood Hull over 22' to 30' (6.5- 9 metres) — 1 49F Wood Hull - over 30' (> 9 metres) 49G Other i , 143 50) Please check the box that describes the type and size of boat(s) you fish in today. Boat Type Yes No Unsure 50A Fibreglass - 22' or less (.5 metres or less 50B Fibreglass — over 22' to 30'^(6.5- 9 metres) 50C Fibreglass - over 30'^(> 9 metres) 50D Wood Hull - 22'^or less (6.5 metres or less) 50E Wood Hull - over 22' to 30'^(6.5- 9 metres) 50F Wood Hull - over 30'^(> 9 metres) 50G Other 1 51) Please check the box that describes the gear types you used prior to the 1992 moratorium? Gear Type I^Yes No Not Applicable I-  1 A Hook and Line 51 B Traditional Cod Trap fi 51 C Japanese Cod Trap I 51E Lump Gillnets 51 F Herring Gillnets 51 G Salmon Gillnets 51 H Capelin Trap -I 51I Capelin Seine --, 1J 10 Squid Rollers 144 51) Please check yes or no for the gears types you use now. Gear Type^Yes^No^Not Applicable 52A Crab Pots 52B Hook and Line 52C Lobster Traps 52D Seines 52E Gillnets 52F Other 52) Please check all of the licences that you held prior to 1992 moratorium. Licence Full-time (FT) Part-time (PT) Yes^ Not Applicable 53A Groundfish FT 53B Groundfish PT 53C Squid 53D Capelin 53E Salmon 53F Lobster 53G Herring 53H Lump 531 Seal 53J Other 145 53) Please check all of the licences that you hold at this time. Please include any that you have but that you are unable to fish at this time due to a closure of the fishery. Licence Yes No Not Applicable 54A Crab 54B Groundfish (Cod, Flounder, Lump, Herring) _^- 54C Handline Permit 54D Squid 54E Capelin t _■ 54F Lobster 54G Seal 54H Other 55) Have you lost licences since the 1992 Northern Cod moratorium other than through voluntary retirement or buyout? a) yes^b) no^c) unsure^d) not applicable Discuss (Optional) 56) On average, how many people did you normally fish with in your fishing crew prior to the 1992 moratorium? a) alone^b) one other^c) 2-3 ^ d) > three^e) not applicable 146 57) How many people do you normally fish with today in your fishing crew? a) alone^b) one other^c) 2-3 ^ d) > three^e) not applicable 58) Do you normally fish with people you related to? a) most of the time^b) some of the time c) rarely^d) never e) not applicable 59) Were you able to obtain your employment insurance each year prior to 1992? a) every year^b) most years^c) rarely^d) never^e) not applicable 60) Are you still able to access fisher's employment insurance? a) every year^b) most years^c) rarely^d) never^e) not applicable 147 Appendix 2: Introduction to Research Project and Informed Consent Investigator: Victoria Silk, Master's Student, University of British Columbia vsilk2003Acanada.com or vesilkAinterchange.ubc.ca My name is Victoria Silk and I am presently conducting research that will help me fulfill the requirements of a master's degree in sociology at the University of British Columbia. The academic area of interest that I am researching is coastal fishing communities with historical attachment to fish resources, the technologies used, the local management and knowledge systems that were relied on to exploit fisheries, and social cohesion. I will also be exploring the issue of common property law in relationship to communities that have historical attachment to fish resources. My research will focus on Petty Harbour and its three hundred year history of settlement and fisheries extraction in an effort to assess its potential to achieve success in revitalizing cod stocks. My thesis is that an analysis of technologies employed in the land-based, low impact Petty Harbour fishery, combined with historical community management practices, social cohesion, and local knowledge systems, all of which can help with sustainability, and provide insights into a potential solution to the fishery crisis, one that may also have international applications. For the purpose of this research, I am inviting people from the community to voluntarily participate in the process through completing questionnaires and/or oral interviews. The focus of my questions will be on the history of the community, the fishery, fishing technologies and knowledge, community ties, and involvement in community organizations and networks. Should you participate you will be free to answer questions or not, likewise to offer opinions on issues you believe are relevant to the research. The information you provide will be confidential and coded under a file number, and likewise you will be provided with an anonymous name unless you wish to have your own name used. The results of my interviews will be analyzed, a draft report will be produced, and you will have an opportunity to provided feedback on this. The final result will be my master's thesis, possibly a referred journal publication or book, and as well, a report that I intend to make available to the community archives, for policy discussion, as well as for future research. The anticipated time frame for concluding this research will be September, 148 2006. As part of this research I will request taped interviews. The intention with this is to more accurately record the information being provided by you, the participant. This will be voluntary, and you will have the right to refuse, and likewise to stop the recording at any time, or have any information removed from the transcript that you are not comfortable with. Anonymity and confidentiality will be ensured and once the tapes are transcribed they will be erased. My email contacts are listed above, and my phone numbers are as follows: Vancouver, BC 604-298-5443, cellular in Vancouver and Newfoundland, 604-782-4154. 149 Appendix 3: Consent ^  hereby agree to be interviewed for the above mentioned research by Victoria Silk. Signature: ^Date: ^ do agree to be audio taped by Victoria Silk, and it is my understanding that my participation is voluntary, and that I may withdraw both my consent and/or any comments as I choose. I understand that all information will be treated as strictly confidential. Signature: ^Date: Should this research project be extended in the future, would you agree to be contacted for the possibility of another interview?^Yes ^No^ 150 Appendix 4: Oral Questionnaire Oral Interview Schedule: Future of the Fishery 1) What was the intention of the inshore sentinel fishery? Did it provide any basis for hope to fishers as in being directly involved in some capacity of management or collection of knowledge? Did it reflect meaningful knowledge from the fishers' perspective? 2) What happened to the sentinel fishery? 3) What is happening to all of the local knowledge that fishers had given that the technology used today are predominately electronic and local fishing grounds are not being fished? Has is this impacting local knowledge, and is the perception that this knowledge is being lost, or will be lost? 4) Still on LK, when the fish were declining in the 1980's fishers in PH were aware of this and quite outspoken. Why do you think that PH fisher's knowledge was so different form DM? 5) Have you been able to locate cod fish visually or by sounding? 6) What do you know, or think of the present condition of fish stocks? 7) Do you have access to a food fishery? 8) Should this be a right of community members, the food fishery? 9) Do you see commercial fishing in this community as a right? 10) Would you like to see any of your children working in the fishery? Has your family been fishing for long in this community? 11) Do you think Petty Harbour used to manage its fishery well? If so, what do you think explains this? Does it still have the ability to manage its fishery over time, and if so, on what scale? 12) Do you know if it is it possible to enter the fishery at this time, can licences be sold or transferred? 151 13) Do you think that the community should have its historical numbers of licences returned by DFO? 14) Where do you see the crab fishery five years from now? 15) Historically PH very politically active, starting a co-op, starting up NIFA, initiating a court challenge to the offshore fishery, overall very protective of its fish resources, what do you think explains this? Were you involved in any of these evenst in any capacity? 16) Can you talk a bit about the role that organizations in the community such as the Harbour Authority (HA), the co-op, the church, council, or the community development committee, play? Are you involved to any extent with any of these organizations? 17) Do you think this community had strong leadership in the past? What about today? 152 Appendix 5: Ethics Certificate UBC The University of British Columbia Office of Research Services and Administration Behavioural Research Ethics Board Certificate of Approval PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Tindall, D.B. DEPARTMENT Anthropology & Sociology NUMBER B05-1098 INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT UBC Campus , CO-INVESTIGATORS: Silk, Victoria, Anthropology & Sociology SPONSORING AGENCIES TITLE : Indicators of Sustainability in Petty Harbour - Maddox Cover: A Study APPROVAL DATE TERM (YEARS) DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL: DEC 1 2 2005 1 Nov. 24, 2005, Contact letter / Consent form / Coverletter / Questionnaires CERTIFICATION: The protocol describing the above-named project has been reviewed by the Committee and the experimental procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects. 40^- Approved on beh If of the Behavioural Research Ethics Board by one of the following: Dr. Peter Suedfeld, Chair, Dr. Susan Rowley, Associate Chair This Certificate of Approval is valid for the above term provided there is no change in the experimental procedures 153

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0066240/manifest

Comment

Related Items