|
Willcocks-Musselman, R., Orser, J., Brylinksy, M. and P.R. Hinch. (eds).
2003.
Table of Contents Section A Executive Summary Aiii Acknowledgments Aiv List of Tables and Figures Av Introduction A1 Community Involvement A1 Community Forums A2 Forum Goal A2 Forum Objectives A2 Community Forum Planning A2 Forum Locations A3 Local Co-hosts A3 Forum Structure A3 Focus Group Discussions A3 Community Forum Results A9 Actions Developed A10 Next Steps A18 Potential Role and Projects for the Minas Basin Working Group A19 Summary A21 Appendices A22 Section B Executive Summary Biii
Section C Executive Summary Ciii Background C1 Workshop Participants C1 Workshop Objectives C1 Workshop Format C2 Action Plans C3 Marine Life C3 Agriculture C4 Sewage C5 Recommendations of Workshop Participants C6 Future Roles for the Minas Basin Working Group C7 Acknowledgements C8 Appendices C9 I Work Plan and Action Plan of the Minas Basin Working Group C9 II List of Workshop Participants C14 III Meeting Agenda C15 IV Comment Sheet C16 Section A
Executive Summary The goal of the Community Forums were to build on past initiatives by communities and government organizations which focused on identifying issues of concern, and to initiate real actions towards sustainable management of the Minas Basin and its Watershed. Due to budget and time constraints, three initial Forums where planned for Wolfville, Truro and Parrsboro. Local co-hosts were identified to help in the Forum planning process and they were extremely valuable in providing local knowledge about appropriated dates, locations, structure etc. The structure of the Forums were worked out with the local co-hosts and consisted of two distinct parts: an open house with displays from local groups, and small group discussions on priority issues. Four or five focus groups were created during each Forum; they were established based on a basic prioritizing exercise. Local facilitators led each focus group with the goal of identifying issues and problems and working towards developing actions to address them. Attendance was highest in Parrsboro and Wolfville, but a similar number of displays at the open house were found at all three forums. The results of the Forums indicated the issues of most concern in the Minas Basin Watershed were Agricultural Practices, Development, Fisheries Management, Forestry Practices, Sewage Treatment and Water Quality, Tourism and Recreation. Sewage Treatment and Water Quality was the one issue of concern raised throughout the watershed, but geographic variations occurred with many of the other issues. Many actions were discussed in the Focus Groups and several common actions emerged. They were: creating coalitions or networks within the community, inventory the state of resources and current activities, research effects of practices, increase education for public and resource users, research and promote use of incentives for resource users, increase communication and cooperation amongst stakeholders, review relevant legislation and create strategies and plans. The Community Forums held to this date have been successful in achieving several of their objectives. They have also provided the MBWG with a good base that will be used during the next phase of the project; gathering community members interested in participating in moving the actions forward. With the aid of the MBWG, they will be encouraged to develop specific work plans to undertake in the future. Section B
Executive Summary The Open House was a success with 9 displays that exhibited a wide range of information from government programs to local initiatives. The purpose of the Open House was to let people know what activities were being carried out by other groups, and to network and enhance communication between groups. The discussion period began with a short presentation by Mike Brylinsky, Chair of The Minas Basin Working Group (MBWG) of BoFEP, explaining the Minas Basin Working Group and the goals of the Community Forum. Participants were then asked to prioritize the issues they wished to discuss that evening. Based on these results four Focus Groups were formed: Agricultural Practices, Avon River Causeway, Fisheries Management, and Forestry Practices. A summary of the discussions held by each Focus Group follows: Agricultural Practices The Agricultural breakout session identified a wide variety of issues of concern associated with agricultural practices which were summarizes under seven key issues: agricultural runoff, pollution, lack of global management practices, herbicide/pesticide use, lack of legislation, loss of farmland, and lack of consumer education. Discussion focused on actions needed to address three of these issues: agricultural runoff, pesticide/herbicide use, and loss of farmland. With respect to agricultural runoff, the group recommended the need for: acknowledgement/delineation of the runoff problem in the Summerville area; public understanding of the downstream effects of agricultural runoff; information on water quality from health clinics and government and for education in schools; an accessible inexpensive testing service for well water quality; development of a central database to record well water testing results; development of nutrient management and environmental farm plans (EFP) to identify risks and ways to minimize risk of contamination; establishment of a buffer zone around the edge of fields; implementation of a mandatory testing program for farm water at no cost to the farmer in order to address the clean water issue; and, the establishment of a funding program to help the farmer prevent contamination and deal with cleanup. In terms of loss of farmland to urban sprawl, participants recommended that communities: hold festivals to promote awareness of the pride of local produce and the importance of buying locally; support local farm markets and co-ops and encourage Valley stores and grocery chains to stock local produce; hold a market day in the summer; encourage the NS Government to implement a buy in Nova Scotia policy; and establish a weekend farm visit program to educate the public on how a farm operates. With respect to herbicide and pesticide use; the recommended that: information on the impacts of application should be readily available to the public in understandable form; and produce should be labelled to identify which herbicides /pesticides have been applied. Avon River Causeway This discussion group came up with more questions than an answer regarding the decision to remove or expand the existing causeway in Windsor when the new divided highway is developed. The first issue discussed was the need for more information about the environment of the Avon River and the past and future effects of the causeway. It was suggested that a full study be done of pre-causeway, current, and prediction of future conditions if it is modified. Another issue brought up was how to get the information needed. It was discussed that government departments and private companies need to be involved so that a broad enough study could be undertaken. Beyond information needs, it was thought concern about the causeway need to be addressed by the various levels of government responsible. A public forum was suggested to allow people to voice their concerns but also to disseminate information to the public about the plans and options the Department of Transportation have regarding the causeway expansion. Fisheries Management Two issues arose in this focus group - bloodworm harvesting (digging) and the causeway's effects on local fish stocks, with digging being the most prominent. This was a lively group, as many of the participants have been fighting against commercial digging in the area for a year now. The local residents saw their clam-flats over harvested and pretty much 'left for dead' in the 1980's. To this day the clam population has still not recovered and there is serious concern that the bloodworm digging is on the exact same path. Concerns can be broken down into the following categories - regulations, enforcement, ecological effects of digging, and communication. Many realistic, doable actions were put forward ranging from banning all commercial digging to civil disobedience to securing funds to conduct studies. There was a hint of desperation in the conversation, as the local people have tried almost everything they can think of to stop the digging and have, in their eyes, been relatively unsuccessful to date. One participant was very impressed, though, with what the group has accomplished in terms of making contacts, establishing a group, and being consistently persistent with their fight. She left us with encouraging words and hope for change in the near future. Forestry Practices Many issues related to forestry practices were raised, almost all of which were directly or indirectly a consequence of clear cutting. For example, chemical spraying of forests and the effects of this on air quality and human health are a major concern. The spraying is being done to eliminate hardwood and promote softwood regeneration in clear-cut areas. Sustainable selective harvesting of the forest would eliminate the need for spraying herbicides. Clear cutting also triggers other adverse impacts including loss of wildlife habitat, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, river siltation, topsoil and forest floor litter destruction, landscape gouging, and water table lowering and flooding. Woodlot owners in the focus group were concerned that that while they want to conserve their woods and harvest them sustainably they might be forced to clear-cut by the government to yield to the growing demands of forestry companies for more fibre. Much forest is privately owned, so there need to be educational and tax incentive programs to encourage landowners to use their holdings sustainably. An accounting must be made of all the many economic and recreational values of forests, other than their cheap pulpwood potential (GPI approach). Communities also need to have a voice in the decision-making that affects the natural landscape around them. This may involve establishing province-wide standards and guidelines to facilitate community participation in the management process. There are many groups all over the province concerned about the devastating impacts of clear cutting. These groups need to pool their efforts and work together to develop an action plan to pressure the government to reform forestry practices. There needs to be more communication with, and public support for, individuals within government who are concerned about forestry practices and are sympathetic to reform. Efforts should be made to get more intensive media focus on the issue as part of a public awareness campaign. Summary Each Focus Group was able to identify specific actions that could to be taken to address the issues identified. The Minas Basin Working Group will be holding discussions with those people who identified themselves as the leads for each Focus Group as well as interested community groups in November. The purpose of these discussions will be to developing strategies to implement these actions identified at this and other forums. Section C
Executive Summary Between January and October 2002 four public community forums were held throughout the Minas Basin watershed. These were held in Wolfville, Truro, Parrsboro, and Summerville. As part of the forums, individuals and groups that expressed a desire to play a lead role in dealing with the issues were identified and subsequently invited to participate in a two day ‘action’ workshop to further develop work and action plans on the issues identified during the community forums. The action workshop was held in Truro on the 16th and 17th of November. This report documents the activities and results of this workshop. In addition to a number of resource persons, the action workshop was attended by twenty individuals representing the different geographical areas of the watershed and a diversity of interests. Three generic action plans were developed based on the broad issues of Marine Life, Water Quality and Agriculture. Unfortunately, a snow storm on the morning of the second day of the meeting resulted in the meeting being terminated early with the result that not all of the workshop’s objective were achieved. However, all participants felt it to be a valuable exercise and expressed a high level of interest in participating in future workshops.
|
|
|