Philosophy Field Course

Radio interview about Philosophy Field Course

2011-10-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

This is just to announce my recent interview on CFRU's Pioneer Radio. The show follows roughly the same format as This American Life. Each week they choose a theme which is covered in several acts. In this week's episode, The Powers that Be, I discuss the ways that scientific evidence is understood from the perspectives of industry, environmentalists and First Nations.

click here for mp3

I love this image from the program.

It might remind some field course participants of the last night on Tonquin Beach!

Your comments are welcome below!

Mainstream Salmon - Could an environmentalist ever approve?

2011-09-26T13:00:00.000-07:00

Mainstream Salmon is the local branch of a large multinational fish farming company called Cermaq. Based in Norway, they have foreign operations in Scotland, Chile and Canada. On Thursday, September 1^st our group met with Mainstream’s Sustainability Officer, James Costello, and visited one of their open-net aquaculture sites

Testing water quality outside pens at Mainstream salmon site.

Mainstream differs from Creative Salmon, the fish-farm visited earlier in the week, in several key respects. This company raises Atlantic rather than Pacific Salmon. Atlantics grow faster and survive in higher density. They are also more passive in the pen. Overall, their level of domestication affords relative ease in aquiculture. Mainstream is also a much larger corporation than Creative. This is a point of contention for some environmentalists who portray Mainstream as the “evil” foreign company lacking environmental conscience. More on this subject in a moment.

Prior to embarking on our visit to Tofino, I asked students about what they expected from our visit to Mainstream. None of them had an idea about the site itself. How large? How many fish? What sort of location? Such questions had never occurred to them and I suspect as much is true of the public at large. This creates an opportunity for people with an agenda, either for or against fish farming, to direct people’s thinking by constructing the images for them. It also highlights the importance of experiences like ours, in which matters are investigated first hand.

Students did have expectations about the Mr Costello. They assumed that he would emphasize the economic benefits of fish farming while downplaying its ecological impact. My own expectations were similar. I anticipated a well oiled presentation glorifying the virtues of fish farming. My hope was to get past this, if possible, and engage with James and his colleagues on a personal, informal level.

As with all of our encounters on this trip, prior expectations were defied. There was no slick presentation. He seemed much more interested in allowing us to look around and ask questions. Nor did James draw a clear distinction between economy and environment. A point also made by Tim Rundle at Creative Salmon is that many environmentally beneficial advances are also economical.

In addition, several more subtle points came to light during this meeting. Let me speak briefly on the topics of multinational ownership and First Nations partnership. Then I will close with some thoughts about the cognitive barriers that stand between fish farm advocates and their environmental opponents.

People naturally feel threatened by large, powerful corporations. The facelessness and distance that comes with foreign ownership also raise concern about environmental accountability. In the past I have not seen very far beyond these sentiments. However, like a landscape that one stops to appreciate for the first time, I now see details in this picture that were not previously apparent to me.

Cermaq is a leader in technological development. Most notably, they are working on a way to bio-manufacture protein for fish feed. Currently this protein is harvested from less marketable fish than salmon– e.g. smelt or herring. Bio-manufacturing fish feed, rather than fishing for it, would dramatically reduce this industry’s ecological impact (as well as costs). This sort of R&D is much more feasible for a large multinational company than a small local operation. I am not saying that these benefits outweigh the costs associated with foreign ownership. My point is simply that the issue is far from back and white.

Discussing fish feed technology with James Costello, Sustainability Officer at Mainstream

As I mentioned in a previous post, companies like Mainstream are partnering with First Nations. When I first heard of these arrangements, admittedly, I was somewhat skeptical. This struck me as a ploy to win public appeal by capitalizing on First Nations’ reputation as environmental stewards. I now appreciate new details in this arrangement.

At one level, industrial partnerships have positive social implications for First Nations. It is about time that the indigenous owners of this territory were consulted about how it is used. Now, finally, they are able to direct the path of these industries instead of standing by on the sidelines.

At another level is the economic benefit, both to First Nations and more broadly. Fish farms are a source of training, jobs and economic stimulus.

The worry of course is that First Nations partnerships are slanted heavily in favour of the powerful. A skeptic might regard them as primarily for show. Perhaps First Nations are being taken advantage of, losing their good reputation as environmental stewards in the process. How could one know if this is so?

One way is to simply look around at what is happening on site. Joining us on our trip was Mr George Frank, First Nations liaison for Mainstream. He explained in broad outline the relationship between the Ahousat First Nation and Mainstream. Ahousat monitors Mainstream’s activities and supports their operation. In exchange, Mainstream employs a certain number of Ahousat people and engages in various forms of community development. I suppose that there is also some financial arrangement among these groups, but that is none of my business.

George Frank surveying operations at Mainstream.

If George had seemed out of touch with the daily operations at Mainstream it would have raised a red flag about the effectiveness of his role as liaison. However, my impression during our visit was the exact opposite. George was on top of his game. He provided answers to all of our questions, no matter how specific. I also noticed his attention to the details of daily operations as we toured the site together. If anyone knows what is happening on that fish farm, it is George.

Let me close this entry with a hypothetical question. I am told that the most outspoken local critics of fish farming have not visited this site nor spoken with these people directly. This leads me to wonder, if environmentalists were to visit this fish farm, would they change their views?

My guess is no. They wouldn’t. I see three potential barriers that would prevent someone from even entertaining the thought of a multinational fish farm that is, on the whole, a social and ecological benefit.

One reason for resistance stems from a fundamental difference in values. Some environmentalists are opposed to economic development and globalization, no matter what. If this is at the heart of their opposition, then there is nothing that Cermaq could do (besides dissolve) that would make environmentalists happy.

A second reason for resistance is scepticism. An environmentalist might simply disbelieve the claims of industry-funded representatives on the grounds of their source alone. Claims about improved farming practices, technological advances, benefits to First Nations, etc would then be ignored.

Applied in moderation, scepticism can be healthy. Taken to its extreme, skepticism can lapse into dogmatism. One must not lose sight of the occasions when even one’s opponent shares a common interest in the truth.

A third reason for rejecting fish farms, even in the face of what we have seen, is due to the underlying suspicion that there MUST be something wrong with these operations. The harms are lurking out there, even if they are currently unknown. This suspicion sometimes goes under the heading of the precautionary principle: one should assume that industrial activities are harmful until they have been proven otherwise.

This idea is easily abused, often by people who are unaware that they are abusing it. What does it mean to prove that some industry is not harmful? Perhaps one requires a scientific demonstration beyond any shadow of a doubt? If so, this is not a standard applied to other industries. In other aspects of food production we happily accept a certain amount of risk. However, when it comes to the unfamiliar, people easily shift to a highly risk averse attitude. Demands are imposed on unfamiliar practices, like fish farming, that would never be applied to familiar practices. For example, you wouldn’t thin k of checking the brakes every time you step into a car. One must be cautious not to lapse into unreasonable suspicion about a practice because of its unfamiliarity alone.

So, there appear to be three reasons why someone might fail to recognize the benefits of fish farming, even if they were apparent: (1) fundamental opposition to industry, (2) scepticism about the benefits, and (3) paranoia about unknown unknowns. Identifying and analyzing these points of disagreement is the philosopher’s way of making contributions to this debate.

I have suggested that all three ways of thinking lend themselves to excess. Some people become so entrenched in their anti-corporate values that no industry can be seen as beneficial, regardless of what it does. Others become so skeptical of pro-industry information that they close their eyes to valuable sources of information. Finally, the demand for certainty is an unreasonable guideline, that easily gets applied to matters one does not fully understand. I am not sure where I stand on the issue of fish farming in Clayoquot. But I have learned from these experiences to question my preconceptions, and try to avoid these excessive ways of thinking.

Friends of Clayoquot (part 2) - what is the future of environmentalism?

2011-09-22T19:24:00.000-07:00

I have come to view The Friends of Clayoquot Sound as a case study in the environmental movement at large. This organization is confronting two major changes in the political landscape that have occurred over the past decade. One is the increased involvement of First Nations in industry. The second is the improvements by industries in their environmental practices. In my view, environmentalists have not found a way to adapt to these changes and until they do, their authority and their relevance are under serious threat.

Back in the protest days of the 1990s, The Friends were aligned with First Nations and other environmental groups in opposition to logging. It is now standard for these industries to partner with First Nations. Often this involves consultation with First Nations representatives before a development application is submitted to government. These partnerships increase a project's likelihood of approval. Importantly, they also provide First Nations with an opportunity to direct these projects. The terms of the partnership agreements are not available on public record. So it is impossible to assess their equity. But the very fact that First Nations now contribute to shaping their traditional territories is undeniably progressive.

Of course, this places environmentalists in a difficult position. They have lost an important ally in their campaign against industry. It is also difficult to find the right moral platform from which to criticize activities that have First Nations approval. If one agrees that the Nuu-Chah-Nulth have the moral and legal title to these lands, on what basis can one criticize their management practices? Matters are very different when we are talking about crown land. In that case, Canadian citizens are entitled to a say in land management. Not so for First Nations territory. One must also keep in mind the historical oppression of these groups, and just how important it is for them to finally gain control over their own destiny.

An environmentalist might well be suspicious of partnerships between First Nations and industry. How equitable are these agreements? Whom exactly do they benefit? These are questions that I will touch on in more detail in my discussion of Mainstream Salmon and Iisaak.

Naturally First Nations communities do not speak with a single voice. Some individuals are less than entirely supportive of these industrial partnerships. However, First Nations communities need to work as one. This culture is also quite hierarchical, with hereditary Chiefs being key decision makers. I asked someone whether he considered opposing the decisions of his band. The answer was that, “not if I want to keep my friends”. (See my earlier post on the two dimensions of personal relationships).

Getting back to the Friends of Clayoquot Sound. The political landscape has clearly evolved over the past decate or two. So have the practices of the industries they oppose. As Tim Rundle of Creative Salmon demonstrated to us, the fish farming industry has adopted many practices that reduce ecological impact. Iisaak, the first nations logging group licenced to operate in Clayoquot Sound, also adopts a much more selective set of practices compared to those which generated outrage in the 1980s and 90s. Both industries have evolved in response to environmental pressure

I am somewhat critical of The Friends for failing to acknowledge these advances. No mention is made of the reduction in feed, the reduction in antibiotics, the reduction in harm to predators, the aeration of pens, the decrease in stocking densities, nor the rotation times among pens. Failing to acknowledge these advances and presenting the fish farms of today as no different from 20 years ago is inaccurate and arguably negligent.

I put it to Dan that his group might even take credit for these improvements. Creative Salmon acknowledges environmental concerns as one of the motivations behind their advances. But this suggestion apperaed not to sit well with Dan. This strikes at the heart of how environmentalists have traditionally regarded themselves, as champions of the people fighting against evil corporations. Nowadays, this attitude appears too black and white. The danger, as I see it, is that environmental groups are risking their credibility. Industries like Creative Salmon and Iisaak are not as media savy as The Friends. The message of their imrpovements is taking longer to get out. But eventually this will change. Environmental concerns are now consumer concerns. It is in these industries' economic interest to broadcast their achievements. If it becomes common knowledge that fish farms and logging companies are cleaning up their acts (as I think is happening), and that these efforts are being ignored or misrepresented by environmentalists, those advocates will appear uninformed and ideologically driven.

Another way in which The Friends and other advocacy groups have responded to these changes, at least in the fish farming case, is to identify new putative harms to the environment. Most recently the issue has been a decrease in wild salmon stocks. Fish farms are held responsible for this decline because they are seen as incubators for disease. This is a very complex issue and I do not pretend to understand its nuances. However, from a philosophical perspective, three important questions arise.

Firstly, what is the magnitude of these environmental harms? Some argue that the presence of fish farming in Clayoquot will cause the local extinction of wild salmon. Is this scenario plausible? Or is it more plausible that they will result in at modest reduction, or none at all? This is a difficult scientific question. One should not assume that environmentalists are in possession of the answer. Lately, some environmentalists have taken rhetorical steps to exacerbate the magnitude of these harms. They claim that wild salmon are a part of “our” heritage as British Columbians. Suddenly fish farming is a threat to "our" social identity. As a born British Collumbian of non-native descent, this strikes me as a bit desperate.

Second, would the purported harms occur regardless of fish farms? For example, some argue that habitat destruction, not disease, is the driving cause of salmon decline. Perhaps even more significant is a point that our group raised in opposition to Dan Lewis. Any decrease in fish farming will most likely increase the pressure on wild stocks. There is no wild population in the world that can sustain human consumption at current population levels. If the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery has taught us anything, it is that wild fish stocks are difficult to manage. So how exactly does the elimination of fish farming benefit wild salmon? It seems just as plausible that a reduction in farming will negatively impact wild salmon populations in the long run?

The third question concerns the benefits of fish farming. How do they stack up against the purported costs? I spoke in my previous post about the social and economic benefits of these industries for local communities. There are further potential benefits when it comes to feeding a global population. Perhaps a reduction in wild salmon stocks (if in fact this is a consequence - I am not so sure) is an acceptable price to pay for these outcomes.

A final thought on this issue. In raising these criticisms of The Friends I am very aware of what I do not know. They might turn out to be right about the link between fish farms and wild salmon decline. What concerns me is their willingness to advocate a position as if the factors ARE well known. I see this as irresponsible given that the harms of removing fish farms are arguably more tangible than the purported consequences of allowing them to persist. It also concerns me that environmentalists ignore larger, more global ecological issues. If fish farms are removed from this region, where else will they go? Perhaps to a country with even lower environmental standards, and what then will the impacts be?

Ultimately, I think that environmentalists are still fighting the same battle that they were 20 years ago. But the situation has changed. Consumers are more informed. Industry has become more responsible. Communities like the Nuu-Chah-Nulth are realizing social and economic benefits that must be balanced against environmental costs. If these issues ever appeared black and white, they certainly do not seem that way anymore. How will environmental organizations adapt to this new political landscape?

Friends of Clayoquot Sound (part 1) - Do trees have rights like people?

2011-09-22T14:34:00.000-07:00

The Friends of Clayoquot Sound describe themselves as a grassroots, community based environmental organization. Active in this region since 1979, ‘The Friends’ (for short) were major players in the 1990s protests against old growth logging. Currently they focus on three perceived threats to this region: open net fish farming, continued logging of old growth, and the recently proposed copper mine on Catface Mountain. From our perspective, this organization represents a distinctive voice in the ongoing debates over sustainability and economic development. Our aim was to understand The Friends’ vision for the future of Clayoquot Sound and how their goals and activities are justified philosophically.

On Tuesday, August 30^th we attended a slideshow presented by Dan Lewis and Bonnie Glambeck called The Secrets of ClayoquotSound. The following afternoon we met with Dan, Executive Director of the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, for two hours of lively conversation.

Meeting with Dan Lewis outside Friends of Clayouquot office.

The slideshow opened with a presentation by Joe Martin, a Nuu-Chah-Nulth spokesperson. He shared a traditional song with the audience and expressed his concerns over industrial activity in the area. This was followed by images of variable retention logging as it is currently practiced in certain regions of Clayoquot. These were contrasted with other images of pristine, unlogged forests and their inhabitants. I gather that the intended message was to illustrate the damage caused by these logging practices. It was even suggested that they differ little in their impact from old-style clear cutting.

Initially, I had the predictable sort of reaction to these images. But on refection I am led to question this response. It is possible that variable retention logging has a relatively minor impact over the long term. To decide this matter one would require other sorts of evidence besides evocative photos. The slideshow seemed geared more towards mustering public sentiment than documenting scientifically grounded facts. Perhaps this approach is justified in a presentation tailored for the general public. But personally I would prefer to see the level of debate raised up a few notches. Some scientific evidence, even a few citations, would make for a stronger case – if only to communicate to the audience that The Friends are basing their own case on solid grounds. Environmentalists often prefer the strong punch-line over reasoned argument, and in my view this is unfortunate. In fact, the general impression of our group is that the average Tofino resident possesses a fairly sophisticated understanding of these issues, certainly more detailed than what was presented in this slideshow.

Another interesting message was that despite Clayoquot Sound’s designation as a UNESCO Biosphere reserve, the area is not legally protected. The Friends are concerned to dispel any public misconceptions about what this designation entails.

During the Secrets of Clayoquot Sound presentation we were treated to this protest video. Enjoy!

What then is The Friends' vision for Clayoquot's future? My sense is that they would like to see the removal of all fish farms in the Sound and a moratorium against any logging in old growth watersheds. This raised several questions for our group, mainly concerning the economic and social implications. How many people depend, directly or indirectly, on these industries? What would happen to the community if they were to disappear? And how would one justify this outcome to community members?

In response, Dan argued that the damage caused by these industries to Clayoquot Sound is inherently unethical. On this view, the loss of old growth is morally objectionable because these forests have intrinsic worth akin, perhaps, to the worth of a person. It would be immoral to condone any industry that harms people, regardless of the social and economic benefits. According to Dan, the same implication holds for the destruction of old growth forests.

While I understand this sentiment, there are problems with the idea that forests are valuable in this strong, moral sense. To place them on par with human life, or even human welfare, requires further argument. What justifies the idea that forests matter more than people?

One can certainly empathize with those who depend on industry for their livelihood. If people in this region are benefitting from fish farming and logging, and if this does not result in the utter destruction of old growth forests, then I can see how these activities might be tolerated in the name of human welfare.

Of course, Dan Lewis might respond to this point by saying that people do not have an inherent right to live and flourish in this region. Europeans originally moved here to attain personal wealth. Now their descendants have come to expect as much, viewing it as their right to demand a high standard of living and indefinitely many opportunities. What justifies THAT attitude, he might ask.

I am not sure how to respond to this challenge so instead I will accept, for the sake of argument, that economic opportunities are not an entitlement. If a high standard of living is what one wants, then perhaps it is best to search elsewhere - or else accept a more modest standard of living.

I have a more difficult time extending this to First Nations. Their ancestors did not arrive here with the ambition of personal wealth. These are their traditional lands to manage. First Nations communities alsoe have the most to benefit from industrial development. Currently, the standard of living in many of these communities is unacceptable. These individuals have a right to develop the region as they see fit in order to improve their well being.

In fact this is an issue I want to address in a separate blog post. The cozy relationship that once existed between environmentalists and First Nations has eroded in recent years. Environmentalists now find themselves in a new political environment and it is unclear how they are going to adapt.

In the mean time let me try to summarize the current line of thinking. I have attempted to reconstruct part of our exchange with Dan Lewis. His organization values pristine wilderness as an end in itself. The destruction of this wilderness is seen as a moral evil. So any economic development is by extension immoral, on this view, no matter whom it benefits. But this is a big assumption. Not everyone values pristine forests over human welfare and I see no reason why they must. Arguably the destruction of some pristine forest is an acceptable trade-off for a high standard of living. But one might also call THIS value into question. What entitles the current occupants of Clayoquot to a high standard of living? Perhaps those who desire wealth should seek it elsewhere. An interesting complexity however is that not all of Clayoquot's inhabitants share the same entitlements. It strikes me that the aboriginal occupants of this region enjoy a privileged position in deciding how it is developed.

Ecotrust Canada - The challenges of adaptive management.

2011-09-17T17:04:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, September 30th our group met with Satnam Manhas of Ecotrust Canada. Its mission is to promote what they call the "conservation economy". What exactly this means is up for interpretation.

Ecotrust Canada's Tofino operations are based in this former fish processing plant.

This also happened to be the view from our hostel. Not too shabby!

Ecotrust engages in a mind-boggling array of projects. The Thisfish campaign, for example, involves tracing salmon "from boat to plate" using an electronic tag placed on each fish. This adds value to the product by allowing consumers to trace the origin of their food and discover its path to the dinner table. Other projects include purchasing Cougar Annie's Garden as a potential education and conference destination, and operating a small seafood outlet in Tofiino. Many of these endeavours are unsuccessful. However, Ecotrust strives to apply an adaptive management approach. This involves undertaking risky projects in the spirit of experimentation. Failures are documented (as well as successes) and the resulting lessons are then applied to future projects. This, at least, is how they operate in theory. In practice the feedback loop is not always completed. Even on the Ecotrust website, there is no discussion of the lessons derived from unsuccessful endeavours. I see this as something of a missed opportunity. However, Satnam explained that they are at the mercy of funding agencies' expectations. Granting agencies don't often allocate money to analyze failure. Instead they expect a string of successes, and Ecotrust must comply with this expectation.

One of the more interesting Ecotrust projects is their campaign to release information from Department of Fisheries and Oceans about catch rates of wild fish. Ecotrust argues that it is in the public interest to know whom is harvesting this public resource and to what degree. DFO uses this information to manage fisheries. But the information is classified on the grounds that it is a trade secret, the disclosure of which would harm fishermen's livelihood.

If this claim is correct, one can understand DFO's position. By disclosing information they would lose the trust and therefore the cooperation of fishermen. This in turn would undermine their ability to manage this resource.

On the other hand, DFO does not exactly have a strong track record when it comes to fisheries management (I am thinking of the East coast cod fishery). One hopes that the lesson has been learned, and that DFO adheres to conservative management practices. Yet skepticism is understandable.

Ecotrust argues that on legal grounds this information cannot be withheld. According to the Access to Information Act, the disclosure of personal or sensitive information is is required, "if that disclosure would be in the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety, or protection of the environment and if the public disclosure clearly outweighs the importance of any financial loss or gain" (see previous link for sources). So legally the issue is whether the release of this information is in the interest or public or environmental health. I can see a potential case for the latter. However, this assumes that DFO is not adequately managing this resource, or, that they need to be externally monitored. It also find it interesting that the Act, as it is stated here, includes no provision for the future access to information. As I suggested, publicizing fishermen's catch rates might lead them to withhold or modify this information.

Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT)

2011-09-15T15:01:00.000-07:00

The CBT was founded in 2000 in conjunction with Clayoquot Sound's designation as a UNESCO biosphere reserve. Its mandate is to encourage sustainable interaction with the environment (there's the S-word again). Our group met with Rebecca Hurwitz, managing director of the CBT to discuss how this goal is achieved. I might add that Rebecca was extremely helpful as a local facilitator for this field course - just one example of their activities).

I have been attempting to place this organization into the grand scheme of things, as far as local sustainability and development issues are concerned. What sort of organization is the CBT and what is its vision for the future?

The CBT is not an environmental organization in the sense of advocating for a particular political agenda. This organization also differs in its activities from the various government agencies influencing this region. The difficulty in characterizing these kinds of institutions is perhaps why they are often labelled simply as NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), which doesn't exactly clarify what they do.

Rebecca identified three general objectives of the CBT: to promote research, education and training within the biosphere reserve. On the research front, this organization has funded numerous investigations into the social and ecological state of Clayoquot Sound and its inhabitants. They also maintain a library of archives and two research cabins (my impression however is that these are somewhat underutilized). It would be interesting to ask how (or perhaps whether) these research activities promote local sustainable development, as per the CBT mandate. Specifically, is the research conducted in Clayoquot Sound used to direct local policy? I raise this issue because there is often a disconnect between research and its application. Generally speaking, scientific findings often sit dormant after they have been collected. As a society we have come to accept this state of affairs, with academic and political worlds operating largely independent of one another.

To its credit however, the CBT is taking steps to monitor community health. To this end, a range of health indicators as well measures for tracking them. Some of these are quite interesting (see below) in that they seem to address locally identified concerns. In terms of aligning research and policy, this project goes part of the way in bridging this gulf by identifying areas of research likely to have local significance.

Indicator	Measure
Nuu-chah-nulth Language	Learning opportunities in each community
Resource Harvesting Activity	Amount of forest harvested, Amount of fish caught
Negative human-wildlife interactions	Number of bears killed, Number of negative human-wildlife interactions
Species at Risk	Number of species at risk in our region
Climate Change	Date of first salmonberry blossom
Marine Health	Eelgrass mapping
Water Quality	Upstream and downstream of each community
Salmon	Wild salmon returns at a representative sample of local rivers
Waste	Solid waste generated per community
Gender Equity	Number of women in leadership roles (band and district councils)
Early Childhood Education	Availability of preschool in each community
Education	Completion rates for Grade 12 including Adult Basic Education
Youth	Availability of after school programs and youth workers in each community
End of Life	How are people dying and at what age
Nutrition	Access to fresh fruit and vegetables in each community
Cost of living	Cost of 2L of milk in each community
Local services	Services lost and gained in our region
Housing	Waiting lists for affordable housing, Average income vs. average housing cost
Transportation	What transportation is available within the region
Unemployment	Rates in each community (including seasonal)

At the same time, this strikes me as quite an ambitious project. Are individuals really tracking all of these factors on a yearly basis? Who is responsible for processing and summarizing all of these data? I can imagine that it would take a team of researchers to undertake this project. I hope that this is indeed happening. I also look forward to seeing how these findings are employed to guide policy decisions. For example, what happens if some of these indicators suggest a decline in certain aspects of community health? Will such findings be taken seriously at the political level? If so, perhaps this area could serve as a model for tackling sustainability issues on a broader scale.

The CBT is also active on the education and training fronts. For example, they provide generous scholarships to entering university students (one awarded to a First Nations recipient and one to non-FN). They are also supporting an initiative to build and manage greenhouses in First Nations communities in an effort to promote community health.

Rebecca Hurwitz, posing with Brittany Morgan (centre), recipient of the Nuu-chah-nulth Student scholarship, and her mother Anne Mack. Photograph by : Photo from Westerly News.

It was an interesting lesson for students to learn about the CBT and its activities. In one respect it made them question whether there are similar organizations in their own communities and what exactly are THEY doing? In addition, I see this organization as expanding the realm of career possibilities for students, who might currently see their options as limited to governmental research agencies. One thing is for sure, organizations like the CBT will need a continued supply of bright and forward looking thinkers. The level of engagement with local communities is also something I can imagine many would find rewarding.

Climate change talk at the botanical gardens

2011-09-14T12:33:00.000-07:00

On August 31st I gave a small public talk at the Tofino Botanical Gardens. The announcement was circulated on a local newsgroup and looked something like this:

"Climate change has not been proven therefore it should not be believed."

How public misconceptions about science harm the debate about climate change.

Wednesday, August 31^st, 201 7:30 – 9:00 pm

Darwin’s Café, Tofino Botanical Gardens

Presentation & discussion, “café style.”

No charge; refreshments available.

Scientists (scientific “producers”) and the public (scientific “consumers”) each face a distinctive problem. Producers face the problem of how to know when their theories and experiments are tracking the truth. Consumers face the problem of deciding which scientific “expert” to trust on matters impacting public policy. The standard solution to the producer problem is the (so called) scientific method. The standard solution to the consumer problem is to base policy decisions on scientific consensus (as much as possible). Dr. Stefan Linquist argues that both the scientific method and the consensus-rule are flawed, and that these misconceptions about science have negative implications for public debates over climate change. (e.g. that it has not been proven and therefore should not be believed). Join us for a short presentation followed by a discussion of these ideas.

Thanks to the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust for co-hosting this event, and also for providing support for our group. Here is the CBT blog link to their site.

http://clayoquotbiosphere.org/web/uncategorized/685/

Approximately 35 people attended the discussion. The audience members consisted of several locals and some visiting university students. For me, the discussion was very fun and rewarding. My aim was to identify some standard misconceptions about the nature of science that can have (in my opinion) a damaging influence on public discussions about climate change. One of these misconceptions is the emphasis on scientific consensus as the deciding factor when debating anthropogenic climate change. It is not the business of science to generate consensus, I argue, and one ought to expect continued scientific disagreement over climate change issues.The history of science tells us that opposition to the status quo occasionally moves science forward. Scientific progress requires questioning of even our most cherished beliefs..Climate scientists should therefore be cautious not to accept without challenge received wisdom about climate change. My concern is that some scientists are motivated into passive acceptance, for fear that their opposition will be publicly misinterpreted. Ironically, that would be damaging to climate science itself. So hopefully the scientific debate will continue. However, (and this is the second part of the message) do not therefore remain complacent about the importance of this issue.

The second part of my talk emphasized a risk management approach to climate change policy. I like to break this topic down into three different levels or sub-problems. Level 1 concerns the rate and magnitude at which average global temperature is likely to be increasing. I use the word "likely" here for a reason. It is doubtful that science will ever know for sure the rate and magnitude of temperature increase to be expected over the next century. But it is possible to agree on certain probabilities. For example, it is probable (according to what I have read) that a two degree C increase over pre industrial levels is likely over the next fifty years, assuming current rates of emission.

Once these probabilities have been identified, one can then begin to ask Level 2 questions. These are questions about the secondary effects of a given rate and magnitude of temperature increase. For example, how will a two degree increase over 50 years impact the food and water supply, species diversity, and desertification? Such issues are more difficult to predict, since they must take into account a wider range of factors than Level 1 questions. Nonetheless, it remains possible to assign probabilities (if not certainty) to certain projections.

It is these Level 2 probabilities that should be carried forward to the Level 3 discussion. At this level one explores the political and social strategies for managing and mitigating the rate of climate change and/or its social, biological and economic impacts. It is simply not clear that a drastic reduction of CO2 emission is the best, let alone the only course of action. Other options include capture and storage, or perhaps compensation to regions most drastically effected.

That about sums up the message of my talk, which was geared towards finding a more rational approach to public discussions on this topic. Interestingly, one of the main topics of discussion concerned a challenge to the very importance of rationality, at least as far as this issue is concerned. Several participants argued that people are generally not listening to reason over this issue, suggesting that my attempt to clarify the debate is perhaps quixotic.

Although I did my best to defend the use of reason in the arena of environmental decision making, I do see this as a very important challenge to my view. It is important to know how easily reason is trumped by other psychological factors like fear and greed. I simply do not know. However, I do not think that this issue is well served if participants in the public debate pander to these emotional elements. That, to me, is not a model for public decision making. So, perhaps the role of reason in influencing behaviour is limited, but I see it as the only available option, at least in a democratic society like ours.

Josie Osborne: Personal relationships in environmental decision making.

2011-09-10T20:17:00.000-07:00

To cap off what already felt like a full day, we spent Monday afternoon in a second meeting with Josie Osborne at the Tofino Botanical Gardens. Now this is what I call a nice learning environment. Josie explained the importance of developing personal relationships as a way of establishing trust among opposing stakeholders. While this might be true, I see personal relationships as a double-edged sword in small communities like this one.

Josie spoke candidly about her time working as a liaison with between the provincial government, the fish farm industry and the Ahousat First Nation. During these discussions, she explained, scientific findings held little sway. Even concerning questions about the ecological impacts of fish farms, some stakeholders rejected scientific findings as a legitimate form of evidence. My sense is that the disagreement occurred at a very fundamental level. In order to be considered an authority on environmental matters, some claim, an individual must be intimately familiar with an area. However, first hand familiarity is not a received scientific norm. If anything, it is considered a source of bias. Likewise, the scientific norms of random sampling and statistical analysis were not recognized by all concerned parties. To some, scientific methods are no substitute for the opinion of respected community member. When two approaches disagree not only about what the experts say about some matter, but even about what counts as legitimate expertise, it is difficult to move a discussion forward.

Josie explained how the opposition between stakeholders was eventually bridged through the formation of personal relationships. For example, riding in a boat together and talking about one's kids. Getting to know each other on a human level, she argued, was far more important than any kind of scientific evidence when it came to questions about whether fish farms should be allowed in Ahousat territory.

The philosopher in me struggles with this observation. It is not simply the absence of reason in the decision making process that bothers me (though it does for sure). I also see personal relationships as a double edged sword. As much as these relationships can be a foundation for trust, I also see their potential to reinforce the status quo. Let me try to explain.

In coastal towns like Ucluelet and Tofino there remains an old guard who pines for the days of logging and fishing. These extraction industries were a source of pride, income and identity for many people. The rise of environmentalism and the disappearance of these jobs (which are not necessarily connected, I might add) are regarded as a direct threat to these honest and honourable ways of earning a living.

Now, one might understandably resist this whole world view. The loss of jobs is more a fault of corporate greed, some would argue, than of environmentalism. For many people these extraction industries were unregulated and highly destructive. They are like dinosaurs taking their last gasp, and good riddance to them.

Getting back to personal relationships. My suggestion is that as much as they act as a bridge for trust, they can also serve to reinforce ideologies like the one just described. In a small community one is forced to interact on a daily basis with people who might hold opposing world views. In Tofino, the environmentalist stands shoulder to shoulder with the fish farmer in line at the local co-op. If personal relationships require civility, as I take it they do, then one's opposition must be tempered. It might be necessary to comply with - rather than challenge- an ideology that seems utterly destructive and outdated, or else face a difficult social dynamic. This is symptomatic of a small town, where interactions with neighbours is frequent. In a big city like Toronto, people can express whatever views they want without the slightest fear of ostracism.

Ultimately I am not sure where I stand on the question of how personal relationships impact environmental decision making. But this strikes me as an interesting question for further thought.

Speaking with George Patterson outside Darwin's Cafe, Tofino Botanical Gardens.

Ucluelet Aquarium

2011-09-09T13:26:00.000-07:00

One of Ucluelet's many gems (if I may say so) is the small regional aquarium in the centre of town. Granted, as one of the founding directors of the Ucluelet Aquarium Society, I am slightly biased. But instead of delivering a sales pitch (of course everyone should go there!!), let me describe how this institution fits into the themes of our course.

Here is Laura Griffith-Cochrane doing a predator demonstration for our course. The Sunflower Sea Star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) in front of her is one of the more formidable predators on this coast. Many invertebrates, such as the cockles Laura is holding here, have evolved specialized adaptations for sensing and avoiding these predators.

This humble aquarium was founded on grand ideas. Several features distinguish it, as far as I know, from any other aquarium in the world. Our hope is to provide an alternative model for institutions of its kind.

One distinguishing feature of the Ucluelet Aquarium is that all display specimens are collected from local waters. Most visitors to this region, and even some locals, are surprised at the amount of colour and diversity in these waters. Personally, I would like to see more regional aquariums like this one. This model of a regional aquarium, highlighting local diversity of each particular region, is superior to the current model of the industrial aquarium, where one sees the same collection of tropical fish. Not to mention, more sustainable.

A second distinguishing feature is the visitor interaction with staff. This openness is built into the aquarium's design. All of the piping and hardware is exposed to public view, eliminating the distance between staff and visitors. This layout helps to relax visitors and invite their curiosity -more like a marine lab than a museum. Combined with the many touch pools, this is a great environment in which to roll up one's sleeves and explore.

A third noteworthy feature of this regional aquarium is its low ecological impact. All of the creatures on display are released back into the wild at season's end. Compare this to the biological impact of a large industrial aquarium that sources most of its species from coral reefs in developing countries. Further to this theme, the Ukee Aquarium is a flow through system. That means that water is drawn directly from the ocean outside the building, flows through the tanks, and then immediately back to onto shore where it enriches the intertidal environment. Water is untreated and unfiltered. This system allows for the display of certain species that rely on microscopic plankton which are almost impossible to artificially provision.

Another benefit of the flow-through system is its direct connection to the sea. New residents are continually colonizing the tanks, making for a highly dynamic set of displays that reflect seasonal changes in the marine environment.

Here is a keyhole limpet (approximately 5 cm across), throwing up its defence against the painted sea star (Orthasterias koehleri): a curtain of slimy flesh, resistant to the star's clinging tube feet.

To me, the Ucluelet Aquarium is not only more exciting than its larger, industrial cousins. It is also more sustainable. This institution also provides a form of economic stimulus to the community that is grounded in science education. As such, it serves as high quality venue for local school groups to learn about, and take pride in the unique features of their environment.

After running a pilot project for the past five years, the Ucluelet Aquarium Society has recently obtained funding for a larger building that will sit permanently on the waterfront. Here is a picture of its current state of construction.

Construction under way for the new Ucluelet Aquarium.

Fascinating tide pools, and the ghost-suburbs of Ucluelet

2011-09-08T10:52:00.000-07:00

On Monday the 29th of August we rose early and headed to the neighbouring town of Ucluelet (that's "you-clue-let"), approximately 40 km to the south. The contrast between Ukee and Tofino is noteworthy. This town feels more like a coastal fishing village than a tourist destination. There are more family homes in Ukee, more pickup trucks, fewer surfers, and it is harder to find a cappuccino (not that we were complaining). One also senses a certain degree of civic rivalry, as evidenced by the stenciling on these signs marking the crossroads between the two towns- check out the fine print.

View from The Junction, where one is presented with the choice between "heaven" and "hell".

There is a special place in my heart for Ukee. For the past decade I have been involved in the creation of a small public aquarium out here - more on that in a moment. One of my favourite spots to revisit every year are the tidepools outside Ucleulet. Fortunately for us, our visit coincided with a fairly low tide and very calm seas. Perfect conditions for tidepooling.

The ochre sea star (Pisaster ochraceous) is perhaps THE iconic keystone species. Here we see a cluster of ochre stars foraging on the abundant mussels, limpets and barnacles that cover these intertidal rocks. This foraging activity keeps mussel populations in check, providing niche-space for other species that would otherwise be crowded out. Ochre foraging also loosens mussels from the substrate, which fall into the awaiting mouths of hungry sea anemones.

Below is a fairly typical tide pool for this region, with a diversity of invertebrates covering almost every square inch of real estate. The cold water in this region is high in O2, providing a haven for plankton growth and a bounty for filter feeders.

Our Group spent about three hours admiring the richness and diversity of these tide pools. I wonder how many visitors to the coast stop and appreciate them.

Here I am, rambling-on about the inter-tidal ecosystem.

A recent addition to Ucluelet is the Wild Pacific Trail that hugs the coastline for several kilometres. Most of this trail is pristine wilderness. But there is a section close to town that I can only describe as surreal. Emerging from the forest that borders the coastline, we found ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a hauntingly empty suburb. These lots were cleared in the mid 2000's, at the peak of the real estate boom. There are shiny new street lamps, landscaped side-walks, fire hydrants, electrical and plumbing facilities, even cross walks; but no houses. This project was undertaken in an effort to bring development and economic growth to the community. I guess the idea was, "build it and they will come". But to me, the whole idea seems incredibly ill conceived. Who is supposed to move here? What were all of these new residents supposed to do for jobs? I am reminded of the images I have seen of ghost towns in Spain, also built during the real estate boom that preceded the financial meltdown of 2008.

In what some might regard as no small irony, the district of Ucluelet won a Provincial award for these developments in 2008. You can read all about their town "sustainability" plan, and about the Community Excellence award.

Hooksum (Part 4) Economic development

2011-09-07T22:32:00.000-07:00

I don't want to give the impression that our entire visit to Hooksum was consumed only with philosophical discussion. There were some excursions. We kayaked to Cougar Annie's Garden. We hiked to a waterfall. And hung out on the beach, taking it all in.

Britt and Curt kayaking.

In the evening our group sat around the camp fire, admired the magnificent night sky, and resumed our discussion with Stehphen and Karen. A topic to which the conversation often returned is the meaning of economic development. The promise of economic development is often presented by government and industry as a silver bullet for solving the many social problems confronting First Nations people. Economic development brings jobs and money to these communities. It is in the name of economic development that logging, commercial fishing and aquaculture are introduced to this region. Given the extent of the social problems on some reservations, the development of these industries is generally seen as the only way to move forward.

Stephen called this approach into question. His main argument against economic development was not the impact it can have on the environment, although this was perhaps implicit in the discussion. Instead he saw economic development as adding fuel to the fire, supplying young people with sudden wealth, and providing the means to self destruction.

I put it to Stephen that economic development provides First Nations people with more than just cash, it also provides an occupation. It provides a sense of purpose. My long standing assumption has been that unemployment and the absence of opportunity is a primary reason why people, both on reservations and more generally, sometimes resort to drugs, alcohol, or even suicide. Stephen argued that there is another way of looking at this picture. What needs to be in place prior to economic development is a reconnection with traditional values. He does not see economic development as inherently bad. The problem is that it alone is an inadequate solution. One of the projects that Karen and Stephen undertake at Hooksum is an attempt to instil the necessary values in First Nations youth, to prepare them for the future. Stephen mentioned that many late nights were spent among the elders of his community, discussing what those lessons should be.

The conversation moved quickly and I am unable to recall all of the details. But one of the lessons that remains with me concerns the idea of how to treat people when doing business. In Western society we have a saying, "It's just business". This saying is used to justify all sorts of behaviours that are offensive and sometimes harmful. It is as if there were two distinct categories of human relation: business and civility. One of the lessons that Stephen and Karen emphasize is that this distinction is artificial. "We need a better way of doing business, of treating each other with respect".

Views from inside the long house building where our group stayed the night.

In designing this field course I felt it important to provide students with an exposure to First Nations' perspectives on environmental and social issues. Failing to do so would have neglected a very important dimension of the course. But one cannot simply approach one of these communities demanding answers to sensitive questions about how its members view themselves in the modern world. Without the generosity of Karen and Stephen, who invited us into their home and shared with us their insights, we would have missed out on a perspective that has enriched our lives. We are extremely grateful for their candor, their warmth and their generosity. I only hope that this humble blog reflects a fraction of what we took away from the experience, and does no injustice to the insights that were shared.

Hooksum (Part 3): A place-based ethic

2011-09-06T19:59:00.000-07:00

In the writings of some environmental philosophers one occasionally encounters the idea of a place-based ethic. My understanding of this idea is that it identifies as valuable the particular region as such. Two places might be identical in the species of plants and animals that they contain, in their ecological structure, and even perhaps in their beauty. For some, those regions would be of equivalent value. But from a place-based perspective, certain regions possess a value that is necessarily unique to it and which exists in addition to these general features. In Western culture we are somewhat familiar with this concept. Certain locations, such as the site of a historic battle, a famous cathedral, or the home of a famous scientist or artist are valued as what we might call sacred ground.

Here Stephen Charleson is reconstructing the system of fish traps that fed his ancestors. Unfortunately, the details about how this system functioned are lost to history.

This idea of a place-based ethic came to mind several times in conversation with Stephen and Karen. I was impressed by the extent to which their very identities are rooted here in Hesquiaht harbour. The name of the Hesquiaht Nation derives from a particular method of harvesting herring roe for which this region became renowned well before European contact. Likewise, the name of beach on which we met translates, according to Stephen, as the place of many traps. This name refers to a network of fishing traps that were used to harvest the salmon that spawned in the stream behind their home. The traps were destroyed in the late 1800s, along with various other aspects of Nuu Chahl Nuth oral and physical culture. But the remnants of this system are still present and have been the subject of archaeological investigation.

More evidence of the Place of Many Traps.

Getting back to the concept of place. In Nuu-Chah-Nuth culture, to introduce oneself as the member of a particular Nation is to convey distinctive features of one’s home territory. Stephen was keenly aware of the boundaries of his ancestral territory. He was able to point out exactly, from the pile of stones at one end of the harbour to a stretch of beach in the distance, was the area to which his people belong. All of the harvesting and hunting required to sustain his ancestors were supplied from within the boundaries of this region. It was not permissible for outsiders to harvest from this territory without permission.

It is tempting to compare this relationship to a particular territory as akin to the relationship I have with my surroundings in the city. Like Stephen, I cherish particular locations in my neighbourhood. For example I enjoy proximity to interesting stores and restaurants. I am happy to live close to a good park and I look forward to observing how it changes over the seasons. But in my case there is no longstanding cultural connection to these features of the landscape. It doesn’t matter to me if my neighbours landscape their gardens or modify their homes – so long as it looks okay. Such features of my immediate landscape have no bearing on my personal identity.

In the Nuu-chahl-nuth case, particular features of the landscape are intertwined with their oral and physical culture. For example, one can look at a large cedar tree and see where strips of bark were removed when the tree was half its size. One thereby knows that this particular amenity –this tree- was valued by ancestors who relied on it over hundreds of years. Stephen did not refrain from describing just how painful it is for him to see such objects destroyed.

Here is an example of a culturally modified cedar tree (on Meares Island). The tree is approximately 600 years old. The fluted pattern around the tree is created from the removal of sections of bark. The size of each rounded section depicts the size of the tree when a given section was removed. Hence this particular tree has been in use for several hundred years.

It became clear during this conversation that Stephen views us Westerners as belonging to a transient culture, or, as lacking grounding in a particular place. Understandably, on his view, it is the practice of our culture to visit other places and claim them as our own. I have to say that this topic made me slightly uneasy, even ashamed. After all we were sitting directly beneath a mountainside that had been stripped bare of trees, and alongside a beach that now produces a fraction of the shellfish that it once bore. I took Stephen to be suggesting that such devastation could only be committed by people lacking a place-based ethic.

Ultimately, I find myself disagreeing with Stephen that a place-based ethic is necessary to motivate a sense of stewardship for a region. That is, I think it possible for people to make sacrifices and live moderately even without a personal and cultural connection to the place supplying their needs and wants. But I found this point impossible to adequately express. How is it that people like us, coming from a remote region, sometimes regard it as a duty to protect a place like this, even without such strong personal or cultural connections?

Hooksum (Part 2): The sustainability concept

2011-09-03T22:20:00.000-07:00

Over the course of our conversations, Stephen Charleson often referred back to the concept of sustainability. As he proceeded to describe his involvement in a series of sustainability planning meetings for Clayoquot Sound, it became apparent how this term acquired a hollow meeting for the First Nations participants.

Here is a picture of our group around the table at Hooksum, just up from the beach, talking philosophy with Stephen Charleson. The hillsides, devastated by clearcut logging, provided a sobering backdrop for our discussion.

The conversation with Stephen Charleson began with a discussion of the concept of sustainability. He recounted his involvement in a sustainability council in the early 1990s that was organized by the Provincial Government. The objective was to develop a sustainability plan for Clayoquot. Stakeholders from various industries (fish farms, forestry industry, tourism groups), the districts of Tofino and Uclulelet, as well as all all five First Nations sent representatives to the table. However, according to Stephen, The First Nations groups were given little say in the plan being developed. Meetings occurred on several occasions (I get the impression that they were monthly) over what I gather was a year or two. Stehphen’s impression during this time was that each of the industry groups were jockeying to to parcel up as much of the region for their respective interests. He also mentioned that no one seemed to be paying attention to the overall implications of their activities on the region. These shortcomings seemed contrary to the objective of the sustainability council. Even worse, First Nations representatives were rarely invited to participate in the conversation. Yet, when agreements would be reached, their presence at the table was regarded as tacit consent. So the First Natoions stopped attending. In November 1993 they bypassed the sustainability council, and travelled independently to Victoria and negotiated with the Provincial government for forty days to arrive at a plan for the region. This is perceived by Stephen and the other First Nations as an important political victory.

Something that became apparent to me over the course of this conversation is that the concept of sustainability consists of at least three dimensions. The first dimension is temporal: over what time period is a given practice being evaluated? Stephen mentioned that the sustainability council aimed for a five year plan. But from his cultural perspective, as a people whom have occupied the region for thousands of years, this time period is laughable. A five year plan is not a plan for sustainability. Instead, his group came up with a two thousand year time line. They based this idea on the model of the life cycle of a Cedar tree. Cedars are an immensely culturally important species for the people on this coast, who use for everything from housing to canoes to clothing. The cedar is regarded here as the tree of life. A cedar grows for a thousand years, is blown over by wind, and then serves as a nursery log for other species for another thousand years. Drawing on this iconic species is how Stephen's group arrived at their time line for sustainability.

The second dimension of the sustainability concept is spatial. This has been a recurring issue in our conversations with various stakeholders out here on the coast. Even if one develops a sustainability plan for Clayoquot Sound, this region is embedded within a global economy. Indeed, the vast majority of resources extracted from this region are exported abroad. The global demand for wood and fish is a threat to local sustainability. Hence, Stephen's group proposed that for the next 100 years Clayouquot sound should not "feed the world". By this, he meant that there should be a moratorium against international exports for a sufficient period of time to allow the forests and the fisheries to begin to heal.

A third dimension of sustainability is the dimension or domain of interest. That is, the resource or product (both of those words are problematic) being assessed for sustainable management. For example, sustainable forestry is one dimension that is sometimes evaluated independently of sustainable fishing. A point that Stephen emphasized is that discussions about sustainability often consider a limited number of dimensions, focusing only on those with economic value. He was highly critical of this perspective. Within his culture there is a value assigned to all sorts of organisms that have no economic value and it troubled him that these were being left out of the political discussion.

Given that this concept consists of these three dimensions, one can understand why it takes on so many different meanings. People sometimes operate with very different ideas of the spatial,, temporal dimensions of sustainability, or, they occasionally limit to the discussion to certain domains. Unless these differences are made explicit there is a danger for people to talk past one another. We attempted to carry this insight forward during subsequent conversations. Whenever the discussion would turn to sustainability, we attempted to determine how each of these three dimensions were being understood.

Hooksum Outdoor School (Part I)

2011-09-02T20:50:00.000-07:00

In organizing this field course I was concerned that students encounter First Nations' perspectives on sustainability issues. Prior to European contact the Nuu-Chah-Nulth inhabited Clayoquot sound in the tens of thousands. They lived sustainably in this region for over six thousand years. However, in the last century these communities have been severely reduced, aspects of their culture are lost, and their homeland has been radically transformed. Surely, the remaining members of this culture have acquired views about these changes, and it is these impressions that I hoped we might begin to understand. However, it is not easy for outsiders to gain access to this perspective. For decades, European Canadians representing governments, religious organizations and (more recently) industries have approached indigenous communities with "good intentions". Time and time again, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth have suffered the consequences of these interactions. It is entirely understandable that members of these communities have grown suspicious of outsiders, especially those who show up with lots of questions.

I am therefore extremely grateful for the generosity of Stephen and Karen Charleson who run the Hooksum Outdoor School in the Hesquiaht territory, at the northern end of Clayoquot Sound. Our discussions over this two day visit have informed by understanding not only of this territory, but of environmental issues more generally. I find it an intimidating prospect to document these insights here: I am unable to do them justice. But I will attempt to convey some of the main themes of our discussions. Perhaps it is best to start with an account of how we travelled to Hesquiaht.

It is approximately a 60 kilometre water-taxi ride to Hooksum outdoor school. The journey takes about 1.5 hours when the coast isn't blanketed in a thick curtain of fog, as it was this morning. The seas were not overly rough (about 1.5 meters at most). But the limited visibility (less than 5 meters) left several of us feeling uneasy. No one was sea sick. But it was close. The trip took over two hours and there wasn't much conversation.

Eventually the fog broke and we emerged in Hesquiaht bay. One of the first things that one notices are the scarred hillsides due to recent logging activity. Despite these, the area feels welcoming and naturally abundant. Our boat was received by Stephen Charleson who ferried us to shore by canoe.

We were welcomed on shore with a generous lunch. Stephen explained how much he appreciated our visit, knowing the distance involved in getting here. He proposed that we sit for a while, relax, and get accustomed to the area. So we spent some time taking in the surroundings. It was not long before the discussion took an interesting direction.

Tofino Botanical Gardens Natural History Tour

2011-08-30T17:46:00.000-07:00

On Thursday afternoon, following the meeting with Tim Rundle and a brief lunch, we walked over to the Tofino Botanical Gardens for our meeting with Josie Osborne. Josie is a biologist who has lived in this region for 13 years. She operates the Gardens with her husband George Patterson. In recent years she has worked as a liaison for the provincial government and local First Nations to develop a plan for fish farming. That is a topic to be discussed at a later meeting with Josie. This time, she provided an introduction to local natural history.

Josie led us down to the mudflats behind the gardens where one has a clear view of the mountains rising behind Clayoquot Sound. In the foreground you see the more rounded mountains that rise close to the coastline. Further away are the snow capped peaks of the mountain range running through the centre of Vancouver Island. Notice the difference in their shape. Nearby mountains look like rounded humps; while the taller ones in the distance are jagged peaks. This is evidence of the last glaciation a blanket of ice scoured the tops off of any peaks under a kilometer in height. When the glaciers retreated about 13,000 years ago this entire region must have been a barren strip of rock. Today, the soil quality remains extremely poor and this is an important factor determining local vegetation.

Here is a picture of Josie describing some geological features of Clayoquot Sound in our impromptu classroom at the edge of the mudflats.

Aside of the lack of soil, two other factors determining local plant diversity are the moderate temperature (rarely dipping below freezing or rising above 20 degrees) and the immense amount of rainfall. Clayoquot Sound is reportedly the rainiest place in continental North America, receiving over 3 meters per year. These factors make for extremely dense forests dominated by three species of tree, abundant ferns and enormous carpets of thick, shaggy moss.

Josie's introduction provided our group with an excellent grounding in some of the basic biological and geological processes shaping this region. Although our discussion focussed primarily on the region's unique natural history, the conversation also touched on how it impacts visitors on an emotional level. Some describe the these rainforests as having a restorative effect. Providing visitors with this emotional connection to nature is one of the primary objectives of the Tofino Botanical Gardens. Undoubtedly, the emotional connection to this place is a large part of the motivation for environmentalists who argue that it should remain in a pristine condition. However, this raises a question of how, exactly, can this area remain preserved while allowing for residents of this region to earn a living and support their families. Perhaps it is an unrealistic expectation that economic development and conservation can coexist in this area.

Creative Salmon

2011-08-26T01:00:00.000-07:00

The controversy over wild vs. farmed salmon is familiar to anyone who has spent time in western Canada. For decades, environmental groups have waged a campaign against farmed fish. Due to these efforts the general public has become highly suspicious of farmed fish. It is generally believed that fish farms are responsible for the release of antibiotics into the ecosystem, the spread of disease to wild stocks, the genetic contamination of local (pacific) salmon, the killing of marine mammals, the destruction of the sea floor, and a variety of other environmental harms. It has reached the point where anyone serving salmon at a dinner party is expected to answer (and justify) whether the fish on the table is wild or farmed.

Creative Salmon is a local Tofino-based company that advertises itself as a “sustainable” alternative to wild salmon. Unlike most Canadian fish farms, they raise a species of Pacific salmon. They strive to reduce the ecological impacts of farming in a variety of ways including fewer antibiotics and low densities of animals in their pens.

Today we rose bright and early for our meeting with Tim Rundle, one of the chief operators at Creative Salmon. We spent a few hours discussing with Tim what his company means by “sustainability”, how they strive to achieve it, and how they regard environmental groups who oppose their operation. After the meeting we chartered a water taxi to visit one of their farm sites in Clayoquot sound.

None of us have previously visited a fish farm. I don’t think that any of us were familiar with the complexity of the issues, and how they are viewed by someone who has been working for years to battle the public perception of salmon farming. What we expected, I think, was to meet an industry representative bent on putting a positive gloss on company practices while downplaying negative effects. Instead, we encountered an extremely candid, very informed individual who was interested in engaging with any question we threw in his direction.

Tim prepared a very good presentation outlining the steps that his company takes to minimize the ecological impacts of fish farming. A key argument in favour of farming Pacific (Chinook) Salmon is that they are “naturally” resistant to local diseases, in particular to sea lice, compared to Atlantic species. He also claimed that these fish are fed a natural diet sourced from a local company. A key objective of this company has been the acquisition of organic certification. Their impression is that by doing so, they will be able to avoid some of the negative public perceptions associated with fish farming. My sense is that a substantial amount of effort has been invested into obtaining this designation. Currently, Canada lacks regulations outlining what is required for a fish to qualify as organically raised (unlike, say, the beef industry). And Creative Salmon has worked hard, both to establish this legislation and to meet this standard. I can’t help but wonder whether these efforts will pay off.

This company faces significant economic obstacles in their attempt to become organically certified. The fish they raise grow much more slowly than Atlantic Species. The feed that they use is more specialized than most. All sorts of technologies have been developed to prevent sea lions from entering pens and releasing fish into the wild. In order to make these operations pay off, they need to reach a market willing to pay a premium for this product.

Meanwhile, the environmental campaign against farmed salmon continues. The official policy of local environmental groups is that the only sustainable way to famr salmon requires the use of fully enclosed pens. I do not understand the details, but basically this would require raising fish in large bags rather than in nets, so that no waste is released into the ocean, and all of the water is treated before being released. I am no fish farm expert, but I believe Tim when he says that these measures are economically unfeasible – the use of contained farms is equivalent, he argues, to the end of the fish farming industry on our coast.

In addition, one needs to consider the ecological implications of contained farming. Fish raised in higher density. The energetic demand of the system. The increased potential for spread of disease. An impression that I came away with, as a result of these discussions, was that environmental groups have focussed somewhat narrowly on a subset of the relevant issues (e.g. the spread of disease to wild stocks), and that this has sidetracked the industry from a broader social and ecological assessment of the issue. That said, we will be meeting with a local environmental group next week and I expect to hear a very different set of arguments.

Most of the students were surprised by their visit to the fish farm. What they expected was the ocean equivalent of an industrial chicken or beef farm, with animals tightly packed together. What we saw, however, seemed fairly benign from our perspective. The whole operation is white small. Fish are stocked in low density. Considerable attention is even paid to humane ways of killing fish to reduce the amount of suffering.

There is still a lot of information to process after this very insightful visit. However, one of my lasting impressions is that the public is not fully aware of the many recent changes that the fish farming industry has undertaken (undoubtedly at great cost) in recent years. What people who oppose farmed salmon are resisting are a set of practices that are no longer in effect. Interestingly, the fish farming industry seems to have been relatively unsuccessful at communicating these changes to the public, compared to the environmental groups who oppose them. On the other hand, Tim admits that environmentalists have played a key role in motivating these changes. I see an interesting philosophical issue here. Environmental groups, through their anti-fish-farming campaign, have caused this industry to improve its practices. They have done so (arguably) by over-stating the negative ecological impacts of fish farming. Or, at the very least, they have failed to acknowledge improvements that some companies like creative are undertaking. To what extent is it necessary, I wonder, for environmentalists to adopt this approach in order to effect positive change?

After our fish farm visit, we grabbed lunch in town and ate in the park overlooking the harbour. Then we visited with Josie Osborne at the Tofino Botanical Gardens for an amazing introduction to the local geography and natural history - but those details with have to wait until my next post.

Tomorrow we are headed to Hesquiat harbour, at the northern end of Clayoquot Sound, to spend the night at Hooksum Outdoor School. Looking forward to it!!

-S

Cathedral Grove

2011-08-24T23:32:00.000-07:00

Driving west towards Tofino there is a small section of highway that winds through a patch of old growth forest. The park is aptly named Cathedral Grove. Trees shoot up hundreds of feet from the roadside. They resemble the vaulting arches of a cathedral. Walking through this area one gets a sense of how the Island once looked. The ground is littered with overlapping logs undergoing various stages of decay. Most are covered in moss and ferns. Some older logs, more decayed, are the nutrient systems for younger trees.

When an old tree arrives at the end of its natural life it is eventually pushed over by wind. A clearing then appears in the canopy. Suddenly a shaft of light reaches a patch of forest floor that might have been shadowed for a thousand years. This microclimate creates not only an incredible visual effect, it is also a growing opportunity for sapling trees that cannot tolerate shade.

Passing through this section of forest on the highway to Tofino, one might think that the Island is covered in untouched forests just like this. But in fact this small patch (only a few square km) is now a rare example of its kind. Almost all of the original growth has been logged. Those replanted forests replacing them contain trees uniform in age. There are no dead trees on the floor. No open clearings allowing sunlight. No new growth. There is an unmistakable difference between old and second growth forests, which partly explains why some people are so motivated to protect those few that remain unlogged.

Things to Bring

2011-08-14T00:56:00.000-07:00

I am leaving for Vancouver in the morning (in a few hours, actually) and I am just going over the packing. A rain jacket and fleece (or a warm sweatshirt or two) are important because we'll be on the ocean for hours at a time and it can be rainy and windy. In fact I might bring a toque. I have a light pair of pants that dry quickly and some jeans. I'm packing hiking boots and shoes and sandals (possibly overkill). Many socks & underwear. Sunglasses. Shorts. Beach towel. A few T shirts. A decent shirt to wear out. Swimming stuff. If I had a light wetsuit to surf in I would bring it, but I'll rent one there. I'm packing a small stove, pot (for cooking), knife, tent and sleeping mat because I plan to camp on this trip. Everyone will need a sleeping bag. I like to use a pillow and sheet as well. I have a small first aid kit and the pills I take for a bee sting. Toiletry bag with basic stuff. Head lamp. A set of bedtime clothes. That is about it for the main bag.

My carry on is a day pack that will come in handy on site. I am packing a few of the small notebooks that I like to write in, a sketchbook, a computer, my ipod. I would bring binoculars but I left them on my boat - damn, too late now. Camera. One novel. Since I have bad luck with airlines losing my luggage a change of clothes will get stuffed into this bag.

On my person I have my wallet with ID (drivers license), credit card, and about $300 in cash. I have a printout of my itinerary. I know exactly where I am going when I land, but if I didn't I would print out a map and possibly bus and ferry schedules. I like to have that stuff in print so that I can read it on the plane.

Okay that about covers it. For the next week I will be visiting some friends and camping on the Island. Then meeting with the field course participants at Whalers Guest House on August 24th. I will be in contact with the group regarding assignments (or anything else -just email or call) over the next few days, so expect to hear from me. I am really looking forward to this! Can't wait.

-Stefan