This site is based, in part, on the Canadian Ocean Assessment, a CIDA-funded research project conducted for the Canadian Operational Centre of the International Ocean Institute on behalf of the Geneva-based Independent World Commission on the Oceans. Please send comments to the author: Scott Coffen-Smout

Abstract A review of opinion and perceptions of Canadian ocean management policy and practice, conducted on behalf of the Independent World Commission on the Oceans, employed a four-component, information collection process to solicit public opinion from academia, government departments, and the grass-roots level. Comprehensive individual surveys comprised one of the four components to provide a publicly perceived status assessment of the oceans and of oceans management policy and practice. This preliminary paper provides interesting and relevant data regarding what a selected constituency of ocean-minded, individual experts think about Canadian coastal and ocean policy and practice. It reports the analysis of the responses (n = 162) to four sections of the individual survey: (i) perceptions of marine pollution sources in Canada's oceans; (ii) principles and values in Canada's coastal zone and oceans policy; (iii) assessment of current Canadian practices in support of sustainable ocean development; and (iv) analysis of Canada's oceans policy community attributes. Land-based pollution sources and shipping operations were considered the most common sources of marine pollution in Canada. Six principles (i.e. government subsidization of the private sector, the profit motive, resource utilization, economic competition, conflict avoidance, and community economic development) were considered as both present in current Canadian policy and having had a negative impact on Canada's ocean resources. Of the seven principles considered as not present in policy, three principles (i.e. biodiversity, polluter pays, and community-based management) were controversial in that their absence from policy had a negative impact on ocean resources, while four principles absent from policy (i.e. human rights, gender equity, women in development, and intergenerational equity) had a neutral impact on ocean resources. The ranking of 21 management practices indicated considerable dissatisfaction with some practices where sustainable ocean development might be practised, (e.g. control of land-based sources of pollution and conservation and management of fisheries ranked the lowest). Analysis of the oceans policy community reveals: (i) over half of the respondents (58%) indicated that the policy community was fragmented in terms of policy direction and values; (ii) nearly two-thirds (65%) emphasized issues of exclusion and conflict amongst groups with coastal interests; and (iii) approximately three-quarters (74%) indicated that the policy community was dominated by federal government presence in funding and fisheries policy concerns, and also received weak support for ocean technology development. Fifty recommendations from the briefs and survey responses are presented, as well as discussion of these results, limitations of the survey data, and future research directions. Key-words: ocean management, policy analysis, program evaluation, public opinion, survey  Introduction The Independent World Commission on the Oceans (IWCO), established in 1995 on the initiative of the International Ocean Institute (IOI), acts as a forum for contributions to global oceans policy making. On behalf of the IWCO, the Canadian Operational Centre of the IOI in Halifax, Nova Scotia recently co-ordinated the Canadian Ocean Assessment (COA), a review of Canadian ocean management policy and practice (Coffen-Smout, 1996). The COA is one of five regional assessments on the interrelated problems of ocean space conducted by the IOI as part of the worldwide public input to the IWCO. The IOI regional assessments and commissioned research papers by Commission members will be consolidated into a final IWCO document which is to be presented to, inter alia, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity. The IWCO report will also be tabled at the UN General Assembly and the General Conference of UNESCO in 1998 -- the UN-designated International Year of the Ocean. The process implemented under the COA was essentially one of information collection, involving the solicitation of opinion and perceptions from academics, government departments, and to some degree from the grass-roots level, to provide a current status assessment of the oceans and of oceans management policy and practice. Four information-collection components were used, including three public hearings, individual mailed surveys, submitted briefs, and current organization reports. Three public hearings held during March-April, 1996, in Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax, were attended by individuals from various sectors, including governments, the private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, First Nations and Inuit organizations, and coastal communities. This process has not resulted in a final prescription to resolve Canada's oceans management issues and concerns, but has highlighted the considerable convergence and divergence of opinion on issues of debate, and emphasized that Canadian dialogue on coastal community values and the most appropriate measures for Canada to secure its oceans future is yet to be finished. Such dialogue has occurred through the National Marine Conservation Strategy Programme (Beckmann, 1996 and 1998) under the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and the Canadian Nature Federation, and continues through the biennial conferences of the Coastal Zone Canada Association (1996a and 1996b), along with many other fora. This is the first known time that mailed surveys have been used to solicit public opinion on issues in Canadian oceans management and development. Similar methodological approaches have been used in the USA by Knecht et al. (1996) who analysed public perceptions of the performance of coastal zone management (CZM) programs by sampling coastal zone managers, coastal interest groups, and academics on several CZM issues. Krausse (1995) examined the perception of harbour residents on tourism and waterfront re-development in Newport, Rhode Island. The purpose of this paper is to present the analysis of responses to the sections of the individual mailed surveys pertaining to the following: (i) perceptions of marine pollution sources in Canada's oceans; (ii) principles and values in Canada's coastal zone and oceans policy; (iii) assessment of current Canadian practices in support of sustainable ocean development; and (iv) analysis of Canada's oceans policy community attributes.  Methodology Survey Design A 16-page survey was prepared to complement information collected through the other three components. The stated objective of the survey was to contribute to national and international oceans and coastal zone policy making. In view of the complexity of the subject area, the survey was broad and comprehensive and comprised a balance of open-ended and check-off questions. The open-ended sections enabled respondents to express views within their framework of experience and interest, while the check-off questions were for efficiency of response. Respondents could omit any open-ended question not relevant to their area of interest or expertise. Survey Distribution A total of 1,475 individual surveys were distributed in January, 1996, to ocean-minded individuals across Canada from various sectors, including governments, the private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, First Nations and Inuit organizations, and coastal communities. Response Rate and Respondents' Profile In total, 162 completed surveys were returned for statistical analysis by June, 1996, representing a response rate of c. 11%. No follow-up reminder letter was sent in view of the fact that the survey was one component of a four-part, information-collection process, all of which were mobilized concurrently and deemed to be of equal merit in soliciting public opinion. In the Appendix, Table 2 indicates the numbers of survey respondents by primary and secondary working contexts, while Table 3 lists the numbers of survey respondents by Canadian province or territory of residence. Assessment of the survey respondents indicates that Nova Scotia is over-represented, as are government employees, while the private sector and coastal community leaders are under-represented. Nonetheless, respondents from non-governmental organizations, community groups, and fishery sector associations represent the views of larger constituencies owing to their broad membership. These observations may account for some of the survey results. Data Analysis Survey responses were coded for statistical analysis with SPSS. Numerical frequency analysis of the data was used for the following: (i) average source score of marine pollution in Canada's oceans; (ii) presence and absence of principles and values in Canada's coastal zone and ocean policy and positive, negative and neutral impacts on ocean resources; and (iii) average satisfaction score in the assessment of current Canadian practices in support of sustainable ocean development. A factor analysis was used to analyse the attributes of the Canadian oceans policy community. A factor analysis is a statistical technique which analyses the correlation between attribute responses and allows the researcher to define summary concepts based on the attribute inter-correlations.  Results and Discussion 1.0 Marine Pollution Sources in Canada's Oceans Overall, land-based pollution sources and shipping operations are considered the most common sources of marine pollution in Canada. Figure 1 lists marine pollution sources in Canada's oceans, with respondents' perceived average source score. This analysis represents the Canadian public perception of marine pollution which may not necessarily correlate with science-based assessments. The highest pollution sources, with average source scores ranging from 3.5 to 4.1, were land-based point sources (i.e. industrial), land-based municipal sewage, land-based non-point sources (i.e. agricultural run-off), and operational shipping. Moderate pollution sources in the 3.0 to 3.2 range were atmospheric sources, accidental shipping, ocean dumping, and the fishing industry. Finally, the lowest pollution sources were considered to be from the offshore oil and gas industry and tourism at 2.6 and 2.4 respectively. Other sources of pollution considered relevant were aquaculture, military waste, dredging, radioactive heavy water, and aerial spraying. Where respondents indicated specific Canadian regions affected by marine pollution sources, references varied from specific sites (i.e. harbour contamination and dump sites), to general regions (i.e. the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, or the Arctic). The regions of the Atlantic of greatest concern for all pollution sources include the coastal zones of the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec, including common specific references to the St. Lawrence River Estuary and Seaway, the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Halifax harbour. The regions of the Pacific of concern for all pollution sources include the coastal zone of British Columbia, with common specific references to the Georgia Strait, and Vancouver and Victoria harbours. All regions of the Arctic were of concern for most sources but particularly for atmospheric and long-range transport sources, with specific regional references to the Beaufort Sea and all inland marine waters. Other regions mentioned included the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay.

2.0 Principles and Values in Canada's Coastal Zone and Ocean Policy One of the major achievements of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development was the international commitment by world leaders and the global community to adopt principles in decision-making related to natural resource uses and allocations. The principles in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 emphasize the need for decision-makers to follow key principles in order to ensure sustainable ocean ecosystems and the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system (United Nations, 1992). The Rio Declaration comprised 27 principles, including public participation, community-based management, polluter pays, precaution, pollution prevention, indigenous rights, and intergenerational equity. Canada is in the process of embracing sustainable development principles in environmental legislation and the Oceans Act, which came into force on January 31, 1997. For example, some provincial environmental legislation includes many Rio Principles, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is undergoing review with proposed amendments in light of sustainable development principles. The Rio Principles provided a useful framework, as survey respondents were asked to consider principles and values which should be included in the federal government's current coastal zone and ocean policy, and rank the extent to which the principle or value is found in Canadian policy. The respondents also ranked the impacts the presence or absence of principles and values have had on Canada's ocean resources. Three caveats of this approach are worth noting. First, present government policy may not necessarily be responsible for the current impacts upon ocean resources. Secondly, policy statements should be distinguished from policy practices since statements are not necessarily reflected or realized in their application through policy practices. Thirdly, it was assumed that the chosen survey population had some knowledge of what is present in Canadian policy. Table 1 lists the 21 principles and values in Canada's coastal zone and ocean policy ranked in decreasing order of perceived presence as perceived by survey respondents, with their effect on Canada's ocean resources indicated by positive, negative, or neutral impacts. There were six principles which a majority of respondents indicated were both present in current Canadian policy and having had a negative impact on Canada's ocean resources. These six principles were: Government Subsidization of the Private Sector The Profit Motive Resource Utilization Economic Competition Conflict Avoidance Community Economic Development Aboriginal Rights were regarded as being present by three-quarters (74%) of respondents, but 87 percent indicated that such rights had either a negative (43%) or neutral (44%) impact on resources. The only principle that was considered present in policy and having a positive impact on resources was Environmental Protection. Environmental Protection was considered to be present in policy by most (84%), but only half of the respondents said it had a positive impact on ocean resources. The principle of Public/Private Partnership was the only principle considered as present in policy and neutral, with half of the respondents indicating that it had a neutral impact on ocean resources. Overall, at least 50 percent of respondents indicated that seven principles were not present in policy. These seven principles include: Biodiversity Human Rights Gender Equity Women in Development Polluter Pays Community-based Management Intergenerational Equity Of those regarded as absent from policy, three principles were considered controversial by being not present and a problem in terms of their impact on ocean resources. The majority of survey respondents felt that the absence from policy of Biodiversity, Polluter Pays, and Community-based Management principles has had a negative impact on ocean resources. Meanwhile, four principles were regarded as not present in policy and neutral in their impact on ocean resources. The majority of respondents indicated that Human Rights, Gender Equity, Women in Development, and Intergenerational Equity were neutral in their impact on resources. International Co-operation, Sustainable Use of Resources, Consultation, and Environmental Stewardship were considered by most to be present in policy, but there is some divergence of opinion as to the impacts these principles have had on ocean resources. The Precautionary Principle has gained marginal acceptance and is considered present by just over half of the respondents. Noteworthy is the fact that there is still considerable uncertainty and continuing confusion over exactly what the precautionary principle means in practice. There are over 12 different international definitions of the precautionary principle or approach found in international conventions and international declarations (VanderZwaag, 1996). Central to these are: (i) a shift in the onus of proof to those who propose change; (ii) the need for a proactive approach to environmental protection, i.e. a willingness to take action in advance of formal scientific proof; and (iii) consideration of cost-effectiveness of actions, although there is ongoing debate over the role of economics in the application of the principle. Other relevant principles and values as suggested by respondents include habitat protection, property rights, co-management, regional development, economic development, poverty eradication, and sovereignty protection. TABLE 1. Principles and Values in Canada's Coastal Zone and Ocean Policy (Ranked in decreasing order of perceived presence, with their effect on Canada's ocean resources indicated by positive/negative impacts.) Principles and Values Presence/Absence in Canadian Policy(%) Impact (%) Present Absent (+) (-) Neutral Gov't Subsidization of Private Sector 90 10 12 72 16 The Profit Motive 84 16 9 76 15 Resource Utilization 84 16 12 60 28 Environmental Protection 84 16 49 22 29 Economic Competition 77 23 11 51 38 International Co-operation 74 26 33 35 32 Aboriginal Rights 74 26 13 43 44 Sustainable Use of Resources 72 28 30 48 22 Public/Private Partnership 70 30 21 29 50 Conflict Avoidance 69 31 13 63 24 Consultation 69 31 35 34 31 Community Economic Development 64 36 13 56 31 Environmental Stewardship 63 37 22 38 40 Precautionary Principle 53 47 21 42 37 Biodiversity 48 52 14 50 36 Human Rights 47 53 10 27 63 Gender Equity 47 53 9 21 70 Women in Development 42 58 7 27 66 Polluter Pays 38 62 20 57 23 Community-based Management 38 62 27 46 27 Intergenerational Equity 35 65 8 44 48 3.0 Assessment of Current Canadian Practices in Support of Sustainable Ocean Development Survey respondents considered the satisfaction level with Canadian coastal zone and ocean management practices and ranked their satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5. The ranking of 21 management practices indicates considerable dissatisfaction with some practices where sustainable ocean development might be practised. Most respondents were critical in their assessment of current Canadian practices in support of sustainable ocean development. Using a benchmark ranking of 3 or higher to indicate acceptability of the management practice, the average score for all but one practice was at or below the mid-point of the satisfaction scale. Figure 2 lists the management practices and average satisfaction scores. The practice considered as most satisfactory (3.5) was Vessel Traffic Management. The federal government was credited with having accepted the Sustainable Development Concept to a greater degree (2.9) than any of the provincial governments (2.6) or the private sector (2.2). The practice which is considered core to the sustainable development concept (i.e. the Integration of Environmental Issues with Economic Policies), achieved an average satisfaction score of only 1.9. A lack of interdepartmental and intergovernmental harmonization is reflected by the score for Co-operation between Federal Departments and Agencies (2.3) and the ranking for Federal-Provincial Co-operation in Coastal Zone Management (2.2). The practices with the lowest scores (1.8) were Control of Land-based Sources of Marine Pollution and Conservation and Management of Fisheries. FIGURE 2. Assessment of Public Satisfaction with Current Canadian Practices in Support of Sustainable Ocean Development (Average Satisfaction Score) Canadian coastal zone and ocean management practices Not Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 1 ----------2----------3----------4----------5 Vessel traffic management ---------------------------3.5 Pollution control, offshore oil and gas ----------------------3.0 Port and harbour management ---------------------2.9 Federal government acceptance of sustainable development concept ---------------------2.9 Marine technology development ------------------2.7 Provincial gov't acceptance of sustainable development concept ----------------2.6 Management of aquaculture ----------------2.6 Management of Arctic marine environment ----------------2.6 Management of marine science ----------------2.6 Pollution control, vessel sources --------------2.5 Conservation and management of marine mammals --------------2.5 Management of marine protected areas --------------2.5 Aboriginal marine resource management -------------2.4 Conservation and management of shellfish resources ------------2.3 Co-operation between federal departments and agencies ------------2.3 Private sector acceptance of sustainable development concept ----------2.2 Federal-Provincial co-operation in coastal zone management ----------2.2 Integration of environmental issues with economic policies ---------1.9 Pollution control, land-based sources --------1.8 Conservation and management of fisheries --------1.8

4.0 Canada's Oceans Policy Community Attributes Respondents were asked to characterize the oceans policy community in Canada by indicating which community attribute best indicates the relative characterization of or is most like the policy community. Oceans policy community is broadly defined as "the individuals, agencies, and communities who work in, on, or around our oceans and seas." A factor analysis of the ten attributes defined three groups of responses. These groupings were used to develop the scales which summarize key features of the ocean policy community. The three summary measures with their defining attribute patterns are: 1. Fragmentation in Policy Direction and Values united or divided on policy direction understands economics of resource development or not in touch with economic realities understands or does not understand importance of sustainable development goals a cohesive or fragmented policy community 2. Issues of Exclusion and Conflict represents well or does not represent well the needs of coastal communities includes or excludes the voice of aboriginal, First Nations' people groups in agreement or in conflict over directions for oceans development 3. Questions of Federal Government Presence does not or does rely on national government funding for research consists of multiple sector interests or is dominated by fisheries policy concerns strong or weak support for ocean technology development Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the results of this policy community analysis. The main conclusions are as follows: 1. Over half of the respondents (58%) indicated that the policy community was fragmented in terms of policy direction and values, (i.e. is divided on policy direction; is not in touch with economic realities; does not understand the importance of sustainable development goals; and is a fragmented policy community). 2. Nearly two-thirds (65%) emphasized issues of exclusion and conflict, (i.e. does not represent well the needs of coastal communities; excludes the voice of aboriginal, First Nations' people; and groups are in conflict over directions for oceans development). 3. Three-quarters (74%) indicated that the policy community does rely on national government funding for research, is dominated by fisheries policy concerns, and also received weak support for ocean technology development. This analysis confirms that there is wide disagreement over objectives and the government's role, and great conflict in general in the oceans sphere. Canadians exhibit a considerable range of dissonance and harmony regarding their values for the oceans and their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the governments and institutions managing Canada's oceans. There is a need to seek consensus on values for Canadian marine regions. Figure 3 indicates a cumulative scale of four attributes of the policy community on a continuum indicating the degree of fragmentation in policy direction and values. Fifty-eight percent of respondents felt that the policy community was divided on policy direction, was not in touch with economic realities of resource development, does not understand the importance of sustainable development goals, and is fragmented. Figure 4 illustrates a cumulative scale of three attributes of the policy community on a continuum indicating issues of exclusion and conflict. Sixty-five percent of respondents felt that the policy community does not represent the needs of coastal communities, excluded the voice of aboriginal, First Nations' people, and that groups with coastal interests were in conflict over the direction for oceans development. Figure 5 presents a cumulative scale of three attributes of the policy community on a continuum relating to federal government presence in funding and priorities. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the policy community relies on national government funding for research, is dominated by fisheries policy concerns, and has weak support for ocean technology development. FIGURE 3. Canada's Oceans Policy Community: Fragmentation in Policy Direction and Values

Community attributes: cumulative scale of four general attributes of policy community Percent saying the community is "most like". . . Scale score               Percent

The individual items were originally scored on a five point scale. The four items in this scale were added and divided by 4 to retain the original 5 point range of the scale. (d.k. = Don't Know; 100% = 162)

FIGURE 4. Canada's Oceans Policy Community: Issues of Exclusion and Conflict

Community attributes: cumulative scale of three general attributes of policy community Percent saying the community is "most like". . . Scale score               Percent

The individual items were originally scored on a five point scale. The three items in this scale were added and divided by 3 to retain the original 5 point range of the scale. (d.k. = Don't Know; 100% = 162)

FIGURE 5. Canada's Oceans Policy Community: Questions of Federal Government Presence

Community attributes: cumulative scale of three attributes on funding and priorities Percent saying the community is "most like". . . Scale score               Percent

The individual items were originally scored on a five point scale. The three items in this scale were added and divided by 3 to retain the original 5 point range of the scale. (d.k. = Don't Know; 100% = 162)  Future Research This paper has provided interesting and relevant data regarding what a selected constituency of ocean-minded, individual experts think about Canadian coastal and ocean policy and practice. To elaborate upon these results, the next phase of the research will require a comparative analysis of the public perception and opinions presented here versus: (i) actual data from science-based assessments; and (ii) a thorough analysis of principles, values and practices in existing Canadian marine-related policies. A comparative analysis may provide some insight regarding the gap between public perception and reality. This research approach could lead to a list of recommendations to government for marine policy development on: (i) how to narrow the gap between public perceptions and the actual state of Canadian marine policy; and (ii) the principles and values that Canada should incorporate into current and future coastal and marine policy based on international prescriptions and calls for action from the ocean-minded public. One research area deserving attention is on the ways to seek consensus on values for our marine regions.  Recommendations Received The following recommendations include those implicit in the briefs presented during the COA process and those explicitly stated in the survey responses. Some recommendations are more widely agreed upon than others. Thus, some cases represent just opinion needing broader public debate, (e.g. see recommendations 20 and 46). Marine Environmental Protection 1. Canada should continue to study and monitor ocean health over the long-term and ensure that practical actions are taken without delay to ameliorate problems confronting our coastal and offshore waters. 2. Greater recognition and acknowledgement is needed of the importance of marine environmental science and oceanography in support of ocean health assessments, and the decline of Canadian marine science capacity should be reversed. 3. Promote the strengthening of ocean policy, science, and management practices related to ocean health in order to ensure coastal sustainability. 4. Involve to a greater extent marine environmental scientists from all sectors in policy formulation, coastal management and decision-making, and ensure the inclusion of the full range of stakeholders. 5. Jurisdictional overlaps between federal, provincial, and municipal governments should be streamlined, roles should be co-ordinated, responsibilities harmonized, and information shared with respect to marine pollution control. 6. Greater international co-operation is required to combat land-based sources, atmospheric sources, and ship sources of marine pollution. 7. Canada should improve marine pollution control through improved enforcement, stiffer penalties, increased support and co-ordination of monitoring and surveillance programs to quantify ocean health, sewage treatment infrastructure improvements, and remedial action on polluted sites. 8. Canada should strive to achieve a zero discharge policy from land-based sources and implement regulatory and non-regulatory tools and strategies to reduce pollution discharges. 9. Public education to instill a greater awareness of the value of oceans and programs to promote pollution prevention and community stewardship are required. 10. A multidisciplinary research program is required on the cumulative ecotoxicological effects of pollution in the marine environment. 11. Governments must demonstrate commitment and enhanced political will in policy, planning, and program implementation to abate and prevent marine pollution. Legislative Requirements 12. Canada should ratify and implement the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 13. Canada should ratify and implement the 1995 United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. 14. Canada should enact and fully implement the Canadian Oceans Act. (The Act was enacted January 31, 1997.) Living Marine Resources 15. The federal government must consider a shift in policy and jurisdiction for fisheries in favour of the principle of co-management, implying shared decision-making responsibility with coastal communities and the fishing industry. 16. The federal government should undertake a review of the ways and means for the devolution of management responsibility for fisheries to the local and/or regional level, with the retention of ultimate authority. 17. Canada should continue to secure the co-operation of the USA and the European Union regarding straddling and anadromous stocks and continue to seek a binding agreement on high seas fisheries matters. 18. Canada should establish and maintain a systematic and representative network of marine protected areas in all three ocean regions. 19. The need to consider the full range of marine species and to protect their biodiversity through marine protected areas and marine conservation measures is emphasized. 20. Sustainability in the fishery must include sustainable use practices and the equitable reduction of harvesting capacity across all fleet sectors to a level approximating sustainability. An equally valid but diametrically opposed view is that one should first decide on public policy goals and then adjust fleet harvesting capacity differentially to meet these goals. 21. Precautionary management approaches emphasizing marine environmental protection, cost-effectiveness, and a shift in the onus of proof should be core to fisheries management policy and practices. 22. Full user-group participation and stakeholder consultation in the decision-making process is fundamental to effective policy development and full acceptance during policy implementation. 23. Integrated national ocean policy and ecosystem management policies are necessary. 24. The environmental impacts of commercial aquaculture should be researched and effectively regulated in a manner that is conducive to the promotion of entrepreneurship while ensuring a healthy marine environment. 25. The social implications arising from the establishment of a privatised fishery management regime, (i.e. Individual Transferable Quotas), which already exist in some fisheries, require study and broad public debate at the grass-roots level. 26. Canada must push for the long-term resolution of fisheries disputes with the USA over the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the European Union over Atlantic groundfish stocks. Non-living Marine Resources 27. The federal and provincial governments need to improve co-operation and harmonization of the regulatory regime for non-living marine resources. 28. Jurisdictional and ownership issues within and beyond the exclusive economic zone require resolution. 29. A management framework is needed to resolve potential ocean space conflicts arising from oil and gas development and for any future seabed extraction of minerals and aggregates. 30. In order to improve decision making, cost-benefit analysis, regional environmental impact assessments before site specific work is conducted, and coastal community consultation should be core to the development process. Coastal Zone Management 31. Coastal zone management requires explicit policy and programming at the federal level in support of regional and community-based initiatives at the ecosystem level. 32. Co-ordination and harmonization of jurisdictions and the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts are necessary for the initiation of a comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management strategy. 33. Coastal zone management must be harmonized with river basin management and land-use planning. 34. Stakeholder consultation, participation and shared decision-making are fundamental to effective community-based environmental management of the coastal zone. 35. Public education and community stewardship require promotion and public awareness of the value of the coastal zone is needed to produce change at all levels, from the coastal community to the highest political level. Research and Development 36. Marine science research and infrastructure requires a dedicated commitment of funding support. 37. Harmonization and co-ordination of research agency planning to avoid duplication is central to the establishment of a National Research and Development Strategy for the Oceans. 38. In view of the current fiscal situation, greater inter-institutional co-operation should be promoted in order to spread the high cost of ocean-related research. 39. Community input should be part of the research priority-setting process and fishers should participate in fisheries science research. 40. Multidisciplinary marine research and better communication amongst ocean-related disciplines are needed to integrate natural science with social science research. Education and Training for Ocean Management and Research 41. Interdisciplinary marine research and educational programs should focus on ecological protection, coastal zone issues and fishery-related issues from oceanographic and biological considerations to research on managing fishing processes, fisher behaviour and the human dynamics of fishery systems. 42. Marine education in basic ecology should be included in school curricula to improve awareness of the economic development and conservation values of the oceans and of anthropogenic impacts in the coastal zone. 43. A public awareness campaign on the oceans economy and heritage should be launched to advocate conservation and sustainable development. 44. Integrated resource management training is needed, including the integration of business and science education, and community education in marine affairs is essential if local-level management is to share or co-manage resources successfully. 45. Education requires the provision of a budgetary commitment. 46. Marine-related disciplines should be concentrated in Centres of Marine Excellence to avoid duplication of programming. The opposite, more helpful and less elitist perspective is that marine education should be available in as many post-secondary institutions as possible and that its importance should be promoted as widely as possible. International Oceans Management and Development 47. The involvement of Canadian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in support of international development in marine-related issues should be supported. 48. Ocean-related issues must be recognized as critical economic and environmental security issues globally. 49. Ocean-related issues require official development assistance and accordingly must receive a significant percentage of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) funds. Principles and Values in Coastal Zone and Ocean Policy 50. Canada must adopt the sustainable development principles of polluter pays, community-based management, intergenerational equity, biodiversity, and the precautionary principle in its approaches to coastal zone and ocean policy.  Appendix TABLE 2. Numbers of Survey Respondents by Primary and Secondary Working Contexts. Working Categories Number in Primary Working Context Number in Secondary Working Context Federal Government Employee 45 nil Provincial Government Employee 25 nil Municipal Government Employee 4 nil Fisher 3 1 Fishery Sector Association Representative 2 1 Non-governmental Organization or Community Group 10 2 Private Sector Industry 15 nil Self-employed Oceans Consultant 22 4 Union/Sector Organization nil 1 University-based Researcher/Educator 30 6 Volunteer Working in a Community Association 1 2 Sector Not Given 5   Total 162   TABLE 3. Numbers of Survey Respondents by Canadian Province or Territory of Residence. Province/Territory Number Newfoundland and Labrador 11 Prince Edward Island 6 Nova Scotia 61 New Brunswick 15 Quebec 6 Ontario 23 Manitoba 6 Alberta 3 British Columbia 27 Northwest Territories 1 Yukon 1 N/A 2 Total 162  References Beckmann, L. 1996. Seas the Day: Towards a National Marine Conservation Strategy for Canada. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and Canadian Nature Federation. 63 pp. Beckmann, L. 1998. Marine Conservation in Canada: A Non-Governmental Perspective on what Marine Public Policy Should Look Like. In: E.M. Borgese, A. Chircop, M.L. McConnell and J.R. Morgan. Ocean Yearbook 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coastal Zone Canada Association, 1996a. Coastal Zone Canada '94 Conference Statement and Call for Action, April 1996. Coastal Zone Canada Association, 1996b. A Call for International Action for the Sustainable and Wise Use of Coastal and Ocean Resources -- The Rimouski Declaration. Adopted August 16, 1996. Coffen-Smout, S.S. 1996. Final Report of the Canadian Ocean Assessment: a review of Canadian ocean policy and practice. International Ocean Institute, Halifax, Canada. 205 pp. Knecht, R.W., B. Cicin-Sain, G.W. Fisk. 1996. Perceptions of the performance of state coastal zone management programs in the United States. Coastal Management, 24: 141-163. Krausse, G.H. 1995. Tourism and waterfront renewal: assessing residential perception in Newport, Rhode Island, USA. Ocean and Coastal Management, 26(3): 179-203. United Nations, 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/26 Vol. I. VanderZwaag, D. 1996. Canada and marine environmental protection: the need for principled decision-making. Briefing, Halifax Public Hearing, Canadian Ocean Assessment, 12 March 1996. All Rights Reserved. Scott Coffen-Smout © 1997 Introduction | Methodology | Results and Discussion | Future Research | Recommendations Received Appendix | References | E-Mail the Author