The information booklet with the four posters on the Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon were produced by the Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council/ Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources Secretariate and IKANAWTIKET.

The booklet and posters contain information with illustrations on the two species of Sturgeon found in Atlantic Canada. The information booklet provides a more detailed explanation about the Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon.

The four accompanying posters highlight four topics discussed in the booklets: Anatomy, Life cycles, Threats and Significance. The anatomy poster highlights anatomy characteristics which distinguish the Atlantic Sturgeon from the Shortnose Sturgeon. The life cycle poster contains information about the Sturgeon’s life cycle and the different growth stages and preferred habitats.

The threats poster highlights threats and human activities which have led to the Atlantic Sturgeon now identified as a “Threatened Species” and the Shortnose Sturgeon as a “Species of Concern.” Sturgeon are a living fossil of over 200 million years and a vital biodiversity of the ecosystem now shared by humans. The Mi’Kmaq people of North-East, North America have harvested Sturgeon long before any contact, indeed for several millenniums using a variety of trapping and spearing innovations and technologies developed for a 6 to 13 foot, 100 to 200 pound fish without teeth.

To order your free copy of any of these publications, contact MAPC MAARS at:
maars@mapcorg.ca – (902) 895-2982

The Strategic Plan for the Decade of Biodiversity 2011-2020, announced in Nagoya, Japan during the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10), is a 10 year framework of urgent goals and action targets for all countries and stakeholders to undertake to save biodiversity, sustainably use biodiversity and equally share in the benefits of Biodiversity for all people “Living in Harmony with Nature.”

Reproduced within this issue of Netawek Ikjikum (see Netawek Ikjikum Newsletter PDF – Page 11) are the twenty (20) Aichi Biodiversity Targets. These twenty (20) targets were developed to meet five strategic goals:

Strategic Goal A:

Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society. Strategic Goal A includes Four (4) Targets: Target 1, Target 2, Target 3, and Target 4.

Strategic Goal B:
Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use. Strategic Goal B includes six (6) Targets: Target 5, Target 6, Target 7, Target 8, Target 9, and Target 10.

Strategic Goal C:
Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. Strategic Goal C includes three (3) Targets: Target 11, Target 12, and Target 13.

Strategic Goal D:
Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services. Strategic Goal D includes three (3) Targets: Target 14, Target 15, and Target 16.

Strategic Goal E:
Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building. Strategic Goal E includes four (4) Targets: Target 17, Target 18, target 19, and Target 20.

The Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council has followed international developments leading to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992. The CBD, in measure, reflects the international community’s growing concern over the unprecedented loss of biological diversity. Human destruction of biodiversity has inspired negotiations for a legally binding instrument aimed at reversing this alarming trend. The negotiations were also strongly influenced by the growing recognition throughout the world of the need for the “fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.”

These three (3) key objectives of the Convention: “the conservation of biological diversity”, “the sustainable use of its components”, and the “fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” are embodied within the 42 articles, and two (2) annexes of the CBD.

The CBD is the first global comprehensive agreement to address all aspects of biological diversity: genetic resources, species, and ecosystems. It recognizes – for the first time – that the conservation of biological diversity is “a common concern of humankind” and an integral part of the development process. In 2002, the international community at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002), for the first time in UN history, adopted the unqualified term “Indigenous Peoples” and the “vital role” which Indigenous Peoples have in sustainable development in its official political declaration:

“We reaffirm the vital role of Indigenous Peoples in sustainable development.”

Since the introduction and adoption of the CBD, concerted efforts on the element of Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS) did not begin until 1998 when a “regionally balanced expert panel on Access and Benefit Sharing” was established at the 4th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 4), in May 1998 in Bratislava, Slovakia.

At COP 10, on October 29, 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising From Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted. (See the article in this issue “Highlight Summary on the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity” on Page 11)

When we look at the five (5) strategic goals and the twenty (20) targets to be met within the decade “Living in Harmony with Nature 2011-2020″ we clearly see the need to do something to help humanity reach the collective vision:

“By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”

Humanity must go forward and see the real world of Earth, Water, Rock, Fire and Biodiversity by tearing off the veil that blurs vision about progress and development, under which we presently live. We must begin to see clearly our need to “Live in Harmony with Nature”. We cannot separate ourselves from biodiversity or the planet Earth.

For our part the Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources Secretariate (MAARS) of the Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC) and IKANAWTIKET have determined to focus our efforts on:

Strategic Goal B: Target 6

“By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.”

Strategic Goal D: Target 14

“By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities and the poor and vulnerable.”

Strategic Goal E: Target 18

“By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.”

Throughout our work in the coming years, the results of our efforts on these targets will be shared with our community and our readers in future issues of Netawek Ikjikum and Mawqatmuti’kw.

March 4, 2011: The Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources Secretariate received the 2011 Nova Scotia Environmental Network Marshall Award for Aboriginal Environmental Leadership.

Also of note, the Nickerson Lifetime Achievement Award went to Stephen Hawboldt.  The NSEN Eco-Heroes group of the year was presented to No Farms No Food.  The NSEN Eco- Hero Environmentalist of the Year was presented to Michael Ciarrocco who is a Co-Chair of NSCC-Annapolis Valley Campus Environmental Committee.  The Cole Award in Excellence for Environment and Health was presented to Donna Smyth and Gillian Thomas of the Citizen Action to Protect the Environment (CAPE).

Youth Environmental Leadership award was presented to James Hutt of the Sierra Club.   The Award for Environmental Political Will was given to the Town of Wolfville and the Langille Honour in the Woods Award was presented to Wade Prest.

To obtain your copy of any of these publications, contact MAARS CDIL Brett Bancroft at (902)895-2982 or bbancroft@mapcorg.ca. Click for more information.

ESSIM:

In accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Conference of the Parties Decision VII/22, the Executive Secretary of the CBD Secretariat called upon governments, nongovernment organizations, Indigenous Peoples, and academia from around the world to submit case-studies on successful and unsuccessful implementation of Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM), as well as any relevant information relating to the lessons learned from the implementation of IMCAM.

As part of that review, MAARS prepared and submitted a paper on ESSIM: Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Plan – A case-study of a successful IMCAM plan (ESSIM) plan lacking leadership for implementation.

Initially, ESSIM stakeholders and DFO, working in partnership through a transparent public process, advanced the ESSIM initiative, which resulted in a proposed ESSIM Plan, backed with broad support from stakeholders and regional offices of DFO. The ESSIM Plan addresses numerous concerns and issues from a diversity of resource users, government offices, Aboriginal Peoples, academics, and non-government organizations. However, since being submitted to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for signature, the ESSIM Plan has suffered from “a sudden lack of national leadership for approval and implementation”.

The MAARS case-study on ESSIM briefly backdrops the history of oceans management in Canada, and the benchmarks set internationally by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the requirements under Canada’s Oceans Act to initiate oceans management through the creation of Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs). The ESSIM initiative was announced in 1998 as the test pilot for Canada’s first integrated oceans management area.

The authors of the report question why has the ESSIM Plan not been signed off by the Minister after almost 10 years of effort? Given that the ESSIM Plan has been ready since 2007, ESSIM has a multi-sectoral Stakeholder Advisory Council ready to move ahead, and that the Minister has recently approved and signed off the Beaufort Sea Plan, we can draw the conclusion that there is a lack of national leadership to implement ESSIM.

The Stakeholder Advisory Council is made of 32 regional members, representing government, Aboriginal Peoples, industry, fisheries, academia and others who volunteer their time to develop the Plan. The lack of national implementation leadership is disheartening to say the least.

SARA:

Species at risk programs and listings have also suffered from a lack of Ministerial direction and lack of an approved overarching policy to effectively and measurably implement Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA).

Earlier last year, Environment Canada released a Draft Species at Risk Act Overarching Policy Framework, in an attempt to fill the federal policy gap between SARA legislative requirements and practical on-the-ground implementation of SARA. Interests were invited to comment on the Draft Policy Framework.

Since enactment in 2002, SARA continues to flounder. On the one hand, volunteer efforts on-the-ground continue to drive SARA implementation. On the other hand, Canada’s overarching economic policy of resource exploration and exploitation at the cost to biodiversity, undermines the broad intent and purposes of SARA, as well as many on-the-ground efforts. A reconciliation of SARA and government policy is required at the highest levels. However, the Draft Policy Framework provides nothing new in the way of national policy to clarify or guide towards full and meaningful implementation of SARA. Leadership is woefully unprepared or blind to the facts and reality of SARA and its significance to Canadians and Aboriginal Peoples.

MAPC and IKANAWTIKET responded to the call for comments on the Draft Policy Framework with a Policy Critique on the Draft Species at Risk Act Overarching Policy Framework.

The Policy Critique highlights the growing call for a new approach toward the governance and use of natural resources in Canada and why SARA is poised to initiate real action in real time with real results. As Canada’s leading national legislation for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Canada, SARA requires:

• new knowledge to be acquired about biodiversity, including scientific, Aboriginal knowledge, and community knowledge;
• supports for Canadians to protect biodiversity;
• critical assessments of habitats, species, and threats;
• legal enforceable protection of SARA Listed species and their critical habitats;
• broad strategies to bring private, public, and voluntary sectors together to recover species and habitats – mainstream biodiversity protection and public involvement;
• specific and measurable plans and actions to achieve recovery; and
• building Canadian’s awareness about the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

For the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, SARA is much more. It is an opportunity for Aboriginal Peoples to be involved in decision-making about natural biodiversity in Canada. Through SARA, Aboriginal Peoples can begin to reverse the constraints of subjugation, dispossession, disinheritance, denial of natural biodiversity and natural habitats, and disrespect for Aboriginal Knowledge about those.

MPA’s:

Another area suffering from lack of vision and implementation is Canada’s network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). MPAs are vital elements of Canada’s Oceans Strategy and also international efforts to achieve, at minimum, 10% formal protection of the world’s marine environment. MPAs are envisioned as starting points or staging grounds to learn about the oceans, provide sanctuary for marine species, and test new methods and ideas in the search for a balance between economic development, social advancement, and environmental integrity in our increasingly important oceans.

After years of DFO promotion for the creation of new MPAs under the Oceans Act, 1997, much remains unrealized and Canadians grow weary of many promises without concrete actions. Less than 1% of Canada oceans receive some protection as a patchy smattering of MPAs. Even less area is fully protected as marine parks. The only way forward is for the whole of the Government of Canada: federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal, along with Aboriginal Peoples, and with the whole of society (academia, non-government organizations, industry and citizens), to buy-into and advance a cohesive, comprehensive, and strategic national network of connected, representative, and fully funded MPAs. However, DFO still remains alone, among the Government of Canada, to keep kicking at the file, with no new money and no new political will.

Responding to a request from the Regional Director Generals of both Gulf and Maritimes Region. The Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources Secretariate prepared a Reply Commentary on the Draft National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas: A short critique exposing voids in the vision, goals, and manner of bioregion formation for MPAs and a network of MPAs.

We do not buy that changing the boundaries of bioregions, or redrafting visions and promises from yesteryear, or spending time and money on desktop exercises to produce paper networks, is a new breath of air in the increasingly stale MPA file, or that a new framework will suddenly change minds about Canada’s oceans.

What is more worrisome, is that Canada’s vision for MPAs has grown cloudy after 13 years of neglect by politicians and governments.

Does a rebranding, through a new Draft National Framework for MPAs make MPAs any more palatable? We maintain that MPAs, MPA networks, and regional classifications do not need to change. What does need to change is the attitude of the Government of Canada and society about the need to have MPAs. If funded and advanced, we can work within the current system to create MPAs. If Canada cannot advance the Oceans file beyond DFO, then we are simply blowing against a prevailing wind of excessive exploration and exploitation for wealth creation alone without any regard or conscience for fulfilling Canada’s obligations for sustainable development, the application of the precautionary approach, or our International commitments to the CBD and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Source: Netawek Ikjikum Vol. 6 – Issue 4 March 2011

A team of state and federal biologists assisted a severely entangled North Atlantic right whale off the coast of Daytona, Fla., yesterday. The team successfully removed more than 150 feet of ropes wrapped around the whale’s head and fins, and cut portions of entangling ropes that remain on the animal.

“We were very concerned about this whale as the entangling ropes appeared to be life threatening,” said Jamison Smith, Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Coordinator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “However, given the efforts of the disentanglement team we are optimistic the whale may shed the remaining ropes on its own, so we will continue to monitor its condition via aerial surveys and intervene again if necessary.”

A team from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission first sighted the entangled whale on Christmas Day, during routine aerial surveys designed to spot right whales in their only known calving, or birthing, grounds off Georgia and northeast Florida. These aerial survey teams alert mariners to the presence of right whales, enabling ships to alter their course to avoid potential collisions with the animals.

This particular animal is a young whale estimated to be approximately 30 feet long and was born during the 2008-2009 calving season. Prior to this recent entanglement, it was last observed gear free by aerial survey teams off Florida’s northeast coast in February 2010.

Immediately after spotting the whale on Christmas Day, an FWC team of scientists responded to the whale to further assess the severity of the entanglement and the physical condition of the whale. While on scene, the team was able to attach a satellite tracking buoy to the trailing lines.

The disentanglement team for this event, lead by Georgia Department of Natural Resources, consisted of land, sea, and air support from NOAA’s Fisheries Service, FWC, Wildlife Trust, Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, and New England Aquarium.

Disentangling a right whale takes a great deal of planning, expertise, and coordination among agencies. Because of the speeds at which the animals move and distances they travel, it sometimes takes days or even weeks under ideal weather and oceanographic conditions to safely and successfully free an entangled whale.

Photo credits: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Right whales spend their summers feeding off the New England and Canadian coasts, then travel to the southeast waters to give birth to their calves from mid-November through mid-April. Scientists typically document one or two entangled right whale cases in the southeast each year.

Fishing gear removed from whales in previous southeast cases originated from locations as far away as New England and Canada. Fishing gear removed from the whale yesterday included ropes and wire mesh material, similar to what is found in the trap or pot fisheries for fish, crab and lobster along the mid-Atlantic, northeast U.S., and Canadian coasts.

Photo credits: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

However, the specific fishery and its geographic origin are pending examination by experts at NOAA’s Fisheries Service.

With only 300-400 in existence, North Atlantic right whales are among the most endangered whales in the world. They are protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Vessel strikes and entanglement in fixed fishing gear are the two greatest threats to their recovery.

NOAA Fishereies Service encourages people to report sightings of dead, injured, or entangled whatle to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission at 1-888-404-FWCC (3922) or the Georgia Department of Natural Resources at 1-800-2-SAVE-ME (272-8366). All live right whale sightings should be reported to the USCG via Channel 16.

For more information on this story, please contact:
Kim Amendola, Communication Specialist, NOAA Fisheries Service
Office: 727-551-5707 Cell: 727-403-6533 Email: kim.amendola@noaa.gov

A case study of and Integrated Marine Coastal Area Management Plan, or Large Oceans Management Area, the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Plan (ESSIM) in Atlantic Canada, which included over ten years of stakeholder involvement to develop from concept to final draft plan, involving multiple diverse users and interests in a highly public and competitive ocean space area, with several unresolved jurisdictional issues, in a country surrounded by three oceans, became victim to a “lack of leadership for implementation”.

This study reveals the depth of citizens and users interests, involvement and ownership of the plan within a transparent public process. Sadly, since the area had low national government priority, the ESSIM plan is allowed to languish without Government leadership for its implementation. This situation is contrasted at end, by comparison to a more recent LOMA, the Beaufort Sea Plan, less than four years from development to approval and implementation in the Arctic Ocean. BSP had the advantage of clear central government, and involves fewer stakeholders, jurisdictions, and competing interests for ocean space, and ocean uses.

Download in PDF Format

A critique exposing voids in the vision, goals, and manner of bioregion formation for MPAs and a network of MPAs.

Download in PDF format.

The Bay of Fundy has won the prestigious nomination to represent Canada in the final stage of the global Official New7Wonders of Nature campaign.

Starting in 2007, the Bay of Fundy was one of 440 participants, representing over 220 Countries worldwide and today is proud to be one of the 28 worldwide finalists. The final 7, chosen by popular vote, will be declared on November 11, 2011.
This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity allows Canadians to showcase one of their most extraordinary natural wonders on the international stage.

Canada’s Bay of Fundy is a 270 km (170 mile) long ocean bay that stretches between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia on the country’s East Coast. The Bay of Fundy is known for having the highest tides on the planet: measuring 53 feet (17 metres) which is 5 to 10 times higher than the rest of the world’s tides and supports a unique diversity of geology, biology and Peoples shaped by the tides.

Go to votemyfundy.com to vote for Canada’s Bay of Fundy in the New7 Wonders of Nature campaign.

As the 2010 International Year of Biodiversity (2010:IYB) comes to a close, the world turned their attention to Nagoya, Japan during October 18-29, 2010, where ambassadors from 193 nations, as signatory “member States” to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) convened the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP-10).

CBD COPs are held every two years to bring together ambassadors and experts to build upon the Convention by signing Protocols, COP Decisions, and CBD Strategies, which together add to international biodiversity law, advance the CBD, and serve as benchmarks for States to consider for national laws.

With the sobering knowledge that humankind has failed to meet every strategic global biodiversity goal for the 2010 target; and furthermore, that almost every global indicator continues to show negative or uncertain trends, Peoples from around the world held their breath. Maybe the positive messages of the 2010:IYB and the calls by ENGOs, academics, and the public, and especially Indigenous Peoples, would be heard. Maybe the CBD would be a watershed moment for States to agree that biodiversity and life is paramount. Maybe we would not see a repeat of the disaster of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which was high-jacked by special economic interests and States fighting over their world ranking as the most powerful.

Overall, some COP-10 results were somewhat positive. For example the bar has been raised and a louder call issued for States to fully implement the Convention. Several important reports were accepted by COP-10 as base knowledge for the CBD, including the Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 report card, which shows that we are failing in every aspect to achieve tangible results, and The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity, which shows that our current economic model is flawed to the determent of all life, including humankind.

COP-10 also recognized the mountain of voluntary public efforts undertaken during the 2010:IYB. These included festivities to raise awareness about biodiversity, a host of 2010:IYB projects from across the globe, and the special recognition in Nagoya of a few hardworking groups who exemplify the intent of the CBD. Many came to realize that through the 2010:IYB, volunteers, ENGOs, academics, and others have advanced the CBD among the public more in the past year than government efforts alone have done in the past decade. The success of the 2010:IYB prompted COP-10 to request that the United Nations General Assembly declare 2011-2020 to be the International Decade of Biodiversity.

However, when faced with decisions about the CBD Protocol for Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), States remained entrenched in the age old preoccupation of wealthy and armed States control over subjugated States and Peoples throughout the world.

Since 1999, the CBD has had an Open-ended Ad-hoc Working Group made up of representatives and experts from member States to negotiate ABS policy and guidelines. Since its inception, the Working Group has been unable to resolve key ABS issues, notably “what is considered genetic resources”, “from whom should industry seek prior and informed consent to access genetic resources”, and “should Indigenous Peoples be included in ABS negotiations”.

For us, and most of the world, the answers are clear. “genetic resources” refers to all of life, because “genetic material” exists, is expressed, and is important at all levels of life (inside the cell, in the make-up of a species, and as a life-giving continuum of an ecosystem). In other words, all genes are a “resource” for maintaining the fabric of life in which we live, whether we can specifically quantify their benefit to humanity or not.

On the question of granting Prior Informed Consent (PIC) to access genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIPs) is clear:

ARTICLE 26

“Indigenous Peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired”; that they have the “right to own, use, develop and control [these] lands, territories, and resources”; and that “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories, and resources.”

ARTICLE 31.1

“Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports, and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and cultural expressions.”

On the question of Indigenous Peoples inclusion in ABS negotiations, UNDRIPs is also clear:

ARTICLE 31.2

“In conjunction with Indigenous Peoples, States shall take effective measure to recognize and protect the exercise of [Article 31.1] rights.”

ARTICLE 41

“The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of Indigenous Peoples on issues affecting them shall be established.”

ARTICLE 42

“The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the country level, and States shall promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness of this Declaration.”

In addition, the Bonn Guidelines on ABS notes as a key element for achieving fair and equitable access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits that “support measures [should be developed] to enhance Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ capacity to represent their interests fully at negotiations” (Bonn Provision 16(a)(vii))

The ABS Working Group failed on all accounts to uphold the principles of the CBD, UNDRIPs, and their own Bonn Guidelines.

The Indigenous and Local Communities (ILC) Caucus has been continually shut out of ABS negotiations at the working group level. In Canada, the federal government has made only passing attempts to consult with Aboriginal Peoples on ABS policy. It was clear, that as Nagoya approached, Canada and other “first world” countries would make every attempt to exclude Indigenous Peoples from the Nagoya ABS Protocol. In fact, in the final draft forwarded by the ABS Working Group for signature at COP-10 almost every single reference to Indigenous Peoples or Traditional Knowledge was “enclosed in brackets” (i.e. not accepted); and the vital importance of UNDRIPs had been removed.

The Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC) along with forty-seven other Indigenous organizations, and like-minded organizations from around the world, working through the ILC Caucus, signed and submitted to COP-10 “A Call for Justice and Solidarity”.

Together we raised to COP-10 ambassadors that the draft protocol, prepared by the ABS Working Group and presented to COP-10 for approval, failed to respect the essential objectives of the CBD – that the draft protocol was not “fair and equitable”, nor did it respect international human rights law. We thank the Grand Council of the Crees, and especially Paul Joffe for submitting this paper on all our behalf. The ILC Caucus members, who, despite being told they were unwanted and did not belong, diligently and tirelessly advanced Indigenous issues during the ABS Working Group and International Negotiating Group meetings. Near the end, some faltered from the blatant assault on Aboriginal Peoples.

Despite heavy lobbying against the proposals, several key issues that the ILC Caucus tenaciously held and fought for were somewhat included in the final Nagoya Protocol, though watered down to our disadvantage, especially by terms and clauses that Canada insisted on, such as “noting” or “subject to national legislation”. Some key statements now included in the Nagoya Protocol are:

Recalling the relevance of Article 8(j) of the Convention as it relates to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge.

Noting the interrelationship between genetic resources and traditional knowledge, their inseparable nature for indigenous and local communities, the importance of the traditional knowledge for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components, and for the sustainable livelihoods of these communities.

Recognizing the diversity of circumstances in which traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is held or owned by indigenous and local communities.

Mindful that it is the right of indigenous and local communities to identify the rightful holders of their traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, within their communities.

Further recognizing the unique circumstances where traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is held in countries, which may be oral, documented or in other forms, reflecting a rich cultural heritage relevant for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Noting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Affirming that nothing in this Protocol shall be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the existing rights of indigenous and local communities.

For the United Nations, terminology is extremely important. The term “noting” signifies that member States are divided on the issue and cannot agree; thus the reference to UNDRIPs carries no significant meaning in this Protocol for countries who chose to ignore the rights of Indigenous Peoples. In many countries, national legislation for the protection of Indigenous Peoples rights is weak or non-existent; thus “subject to national legislation” excludes Indigenous Peoples.

From the perspective of an Aboriginal Regional Peoples Organization, continuing on Traditional Ancestral Homelands, facing subjugation, denial, and dispossession of lands and resources each and every day, the Nagoya Protocol in 2010 “shamefully opens the door for legalized bio-piracy”.

As stated by a Mi’kmaw expert, “First they tried to steal the land and now they let in the pirates to steal our knowledge”.

Some COP-10 officials did realize that there has been a lot of resistance to include statements and related articles, that will advance UNDRIPs. Policing of the Nagoya Protocol will be an important task for the CBD. In their decision to adopt the Protocol, COP-10 requires that member States establish an Open-ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee to assess compliance with Article 12 bis (concerning the access to traditional knowledge with the prior informed consent of Indigenous communities) – in effect to monitor member States to ensure that they develop and implement national legislations, policies, and programs to implement the Nagoya Protocol and to ensure that such actions do not run counter to the goals and principles of the CBD or UNDRIPs.

The Nagoya Protocol will be open for signature from February 2, 2011 to February 1, 2012. Ninety days after receiving the fiftieth signature, it will come into force as a key international legal instrument for the CBD. We invite Canada to work with MAPC and IKANAWTIKET to reverse the course from bio-piracy, identify problem areas with the Nagoya Protocol, and conform with Canada’s existing national legislation. We do not want the world to look at Canada as moving away from the CBD on the issue of Aboriginal Peoples Rights. The Nagoya Protocol must be discussed with all of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

On a more positive note, COP-10 did approve a new CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020. Realizing the collective failure of States to meet the 2010 targets, COP-10 set twenty new targets to be achieved within the next ten years. The strategy also put forward a new vision:

“Living in harmony with nature, where by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.” (emphasis added) (2010 statement)

To reach the 2020 targets, COP-10 was very pointed to member States that each must re-evaluate and update their national biodiversity strategies, fully incorporate biodiversity strategic goals into all public and private sectors, and fully engage the public and business.

The last point is especially important. Only through “mainstreaming biodiversity” (i.e., making it part of everyday public and private life) will we achieve the 2020 targets.

COP-10 also requested that member States review UNDRIPs. If adhered to through the creation of new national legislation and policy, UNDRIPs can be an important doorway for including Indigenous Peoples in the CBD and greatly increase our chances of meeting the 2020 global targets.

Yet, even though we agree that a renewed effort must be made to achieve tangible biodiversity targets, we do observe a concerning trend at CBD meetings, which surface as in the 2011-2020 Strategy. The vision statement contains a subtle, yet significant departure from the previous vision and responsibilities of States to the CBD – “the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources are of the greatest interest to humankind, and affect all life on Earth.” (2008 statement)

The difference between these two statements is that the 2008 statement advances the realization that the actions of humankind affect all life on Earth. Humankind is meant to recognize our impacts and try to live as part of nature. With the 2010 statement, States now wish to promote a notion that humanities values for conservation, restoration, use of biodiversity, and maintenance of ecosystems is solely for the benefits of people.

We note that a fundamental shift in mind-set has occurred, where this Strategy is focused foremost to benefit people. We see this narrowing to be the result of two realities:

1. States themselves will continue to fail to support, recognize, or respect the overall value of all biodiversity and all life forms; and instead, think of humankind as masters of the natural world, to use and exploit at will, as sole beneficiaries of biodiversity.
2. The UN body itself appreciates that there is a fundamental block or inability of States to look at or change values away from “industrialized consumption at the cost of all biodiversity” to a new value for the “well-being of biodiversity which supports all life.” The UN accepts the weakening of the CBD Strategy as a compromise, with the hope of making some progress without significantly changing the modus operandi of States that promote and support wealth creation at all costs.

Clearly there is a disconnect happening at the CBD between the will of the people and the will of governments. Most obviously excluded in the Nagoya Protocol on ABS are the aspirations, realitites and needs of over 800 million Indigenous Peoples throughout the world. The outcomes of COP-10 can be viewed on the CBD website at: www.cbd.int/cop10.

The Petitcodiac River ‘the river that bends like a bow” runs 129 km through south eastern part of New Brunswick draining a watershed of approximately 2,831 square kilometers. Prior to 1968 the Petitcodiac River was home to a large number of species. In the 1960s there were Atlantic Tomcod and Rainbow Smelt, both with populations in the hundreds of thousands; Gaspereau and American Shad, numbering in the tens of thousands; American Eel, Atlantic Salmon, Brook Trout, Lamprey, and Striped Bass, all originally numbering in the thousands; and Atlantic Sturgeon, with numbers in the several hundreds. Other fish included the Blue Back Herring, Brown Bullhead, Chain Pickerel, Smallmouth Bass, White Perch, and White Sucker. Marine mammals and sharks also occasionally visited the mouth of the river, including Pilot Whales, Atlantic White-Sided Dolphins, Harbour Porpoise, Harbour Seals and Porbeagle sharks. Freshwater molluscs filled the muds, including Brook Floater, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Eastern Ellipto, Eastern Floater, Eastern Pearlshell, and Triangle Floater.

Shipping on the Petitcodiac River played an important role in Moncton’s development. Much of this area depended on the coming and going of ships of various sizes. The reverse flow of the tide made the Petitcodiac River economical for vessels to travel. Large ships could ride the incoming tide from the deep waters below Hopewell Cape up to Moncton, unload cargo or passengers and then ride the ebb tide back to the deep water.

The numerous wharves that jutted out along the Moncton’s river front were kept busy from early spring until late fall. Companies located on the river each had their own wharf to receive or send goods. The wharves were also a social gathering place for Monctonians where they met and exchanged news with visiting crews and enjoyed the cool breeze from the river on warm summer evenings.

The river once exhibited one of the world’s highest tidal bores of 1 to 2 metres (3.3 – 6.6 ft) in height, with speeds of 5-13 km/hr (3.1 – 8.1mi/hr). These were comparable with tidal bores for the Qiantang River in China, the Hooghly River in India, and the Amazon River of South America.

In 1968, a rock-and-earth causeway was built between Moncton and Riverview to prevent agricultural flooding and to serve as a roadway between the two communities. After the construction of the causeway, the barrier reduced the bores to only 5 – 75 cm (2.0 – 30 inches).

Even in the late 60s the construction of the Petitcodiac causeway was controversial and history has proven that the causeway opponents were right. Over the decades numerous reports and oral histories have shown that the causeway caused numerous problems for the river and the surrounding ecosystem. In just 3 years, an estimated 10 million cubic metres of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km of the river beneath the causeway. Residents labeled this once clear river the “chocolate river” because of it new brownish tint. The New Brunswick government was forced to open the gates periodically since the late 80s to try to mitigate some problems but it was clear that the causeway would have to be removed. In 2003 Earthwild International designated the Petitcodiac River as the most endangered river in Canada.

Since the causeway was constructed six species have disappeared from the river. The Petitcodiac River was the only known habitat of the Dwarf Wedgemussel in Canada. It now only remains in just nine American watersheds following its extirpation from the Petitcodiac. The Atlantic Salmon is no longer in the watershed, and was a flagship species for Parliament to enact the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The American Shad was a favorite with fishermen, supporting a large and strong Shad fishery from 1870 to 1900- it too disappeared. Three other species have been eliminated from the river; Striped Bass, Atlantic Sturgeon, and Atlantic Tomcod.

On April 14th of this year, after more than 40 years, the causeway gates were opened, commencing one of the biggest restoration projects in the world. During the past seven months since the opening of the gates, the river is starting to show signs of life again. According to Marco Morency of the Petitcodiac Riverkeepers, the gates will remain open for the winter, if the ice buildup in the river system starts to accumulate then the gates will be closed, as they feel with the gates open the ice could damage the causeway. Reports of sturgeon, gaspereau, striped bass, shad, and marine mammals such as seals, and porpoises have been seen in the river. Even though the gate area represents only a small portion of the river’s actual width, the flow of water during the two tidal cycles each day has had a dramatic effect. With each ebb and flow of the tide, silt is lifted and shifted around. There are parts of the river where the tidal current has eroded the bank and other areas where the river is infilling. One of the biggest visible changes is the scouring of the river bottom directly upstream of the causeway gates where rushing water has chewed away at the silt to increase the depth of the channel.

On November 10, 2010, the Petitcodiac Riverkeepers received the 2010 Environmental Leadership Award from the New Brunswick Environment Minister, the Honorable Margaret-Ann Blaney. Mr. Morency, accepted the award noting that the thousands of supporters and residents who care for the river also made this restoration a reality. “It’s a very meaningful award for the organization. It has been a long journey rallying the communities and both levels of government to fix the errors of the past and to uphold the Fisheries Act. Now the government is engaging in the restoration project and recognizes our role in bringing forward a solution,” says Morency.

Petitcodiac River throughout the years