Minas Basin Community Forums
Wolfville Forum

The Minas Basin Working Group of the Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership (BoFEP) with its co-hosts are holding a series of Community Forums around the Minas Basin this winter. The goal of these Community Forums will be to initiate wider community involvement in fostering sustainable economic, social and ecological development within the Minas Basin Watershed.

The first workshop will be held Thursday, January 24^th and will be co-hosted with Kings Community Economic Development Agency and the Valley Watershed Stewardship Association. It will be held at Horton High School in Wolfville from 5pm to 9:30pm. The Community Forum is free and will consist of an Open House from 5pm to 7pm (Refreshments provided) and a Discussion Period from 7pm to 9pm.

We invite all community members and organizations to participate as this Community Forum will provide an exceptional opportunity for you to help determine the future of our communities and their environments.

We also invite all interested individuals and organizations to have a display/both at the Open House portion of one or all of the Community Forums. For more information contact: Robin Musselman, Workshop Coordinator 902-455-2202 r.musselman@ns.sympatico.ca or Pat Hinch, Chair of Minas Basin Working Group

902-424-6345 hinchpr@gov.ns.ca

The Minas Basin Working Group and The Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership

The Bay of Fundy has long been of great economic, social, ecological and scientific significance. It is recognized around the world, largely because of its renowned tides. However, in recent years there have been disturbing signs that all may not be well with the Bay. Declines in fish stocks, falling numbers in other wildlife, and declining water quality are some of the issues currently being addressed. An increasing number of resource users with competing interests have placed an incredible amount of stress on this ecosystem

The Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership (BoFEP) was initiated in 1997 with the vision of promoting the ecological integrity, vitality, biodiversity and productivity of the Bay of Fundy ecosystem, in support of the social well being and economic sustainability of its coastal communities. One of its major goals is to facilitate and enhance communication and co-operation among all citizens interested in understanding, sustainably using and conserving the resources, habitats, and ecological processes of the Bay of Fundy. The Minas Basin Working Group of BoFEP is focusing specifically on the Minas Basin portion of the Bay of Fundy to develop a sustainable management plan for the region. This Minas Basin project will be based on the issues and efforts of local residents and groups.

Kings County Economic Development Association

The Kings County Economic Development Agency’ mandate is to provide a structure and forum to facilitate community economic development, which includes all those activities, both acceptable and sustainable, that contribute to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the community of Kings County. The Kings CED Agency is a registered non-profit society with a membership of more than 200.

 The Valley Watershed Stewardship Association

The Valley Watershed Stewardship Association was formed in response to citizen desire for local participation in water issues that were brought to the forefront primarily by agricultural irrigators who were faced with successive years of drought. The result was the formation of a non profit association incorporated in 2001 that is a community-based grass roots organization composed of individuals and groups with a diverse focus on water priorities. The VWSA provides a forum for discussion and initiating proactive action in order to address a wide range of water issues. Goals and objectives are "to facilitate, promote and encourage stewardship of water resources" in the watersheds of the Cornwallis, Pereau, Canard, Habitat and Gaspereau Rivers. Membership is open to individuals/ groups that are associated with these watersheds.

Summary of Focus Group Discussions at Wolfville Community Forum:

Listed below is the information gathered from each Focus Group including participants and a summary of discussions.

Agricultural Practices Focus Group
Development Focus Group
Fisheries Management Focus Group
Forestry Practices Focus Group
Sewage treatment/Water Quality Focus Group

Participants: 
Alex DeNicola, Andrew Gillis, Angela Bond, Bill Swetnam, Brian Newcombe, Don Conrad, Edith Haliburton,
Graham Fisher, Greg Bezanson, James Ferguson*, Keith Carey, Linda Redmond, Mike Brylinksy, Peggy Hope-Simpson,
Richard Hennigar*, Robin Whidden, Roger Blate?

Summary of Discussion    (notes compiled by Mike Brylinsky)

1.0 What are the Issues:
Livestock Management
Monoculture vs. Traditional (Mixed) Agriculture
Impacts of Agriculture on Wildlife Habitat
Ownership (Large Corporations)
Survival of Small and Medium Farms
Genetically Modified Organisms
Protection of Watershed Area
Water Quality and Quantity
Waste Management (Nutrients)
Preservation (Sustainability) of Agriculture
Soil Conservation
Chemical Usage/Contamination
Impacts on Global Warming (Fossil Fuel Consumption/Transportation/Chemicals)
Impacts of Global Warming
Marketing

 2.0 Management Actions:

Waste Management (Nutrients)
Control of Manure Run-off
Reduction of Excess Nutrient Leaching
Reduction of Loss of Nutrients into Atmosphere
Reduction of Soil Erosion (P)
Better Manure Storage and Application Procedures
More Composting of Manure

Soil Conservation
Better Tillage Practices
Increase Soil Organic Matter
Size of Fields
Reduce Soil Erosion due to unrestricted access of Cattle to Streams
Better Riparian Zone Management
Reduce Fallowing
Use Crop Rotations

Chemical Usage/Contamination
Pest Monitoring
Integrated Pest Management
Identify Sources of Contamination

Wildlife Habitat
Riparian Zone Management
Preservation of Wetlands

3.0 What needs to be done:
Need of Government to Provide Incentives
More Education (Opportunities to Learn)
More Community Involvement in Dealing with Issues
More Research at Universities and Colleges
Development and Enforcement of BMPs
Development of a ‘Land Ethic’
Transformation of Consciousness
Collect Information, Clarify Problems, Identify Steps to be Make it Realistically Happen

4.0 How to implement:
Use Existing Organizations
Provide Funding
Unite Like-Minded Groups/Individuals and Strengthen Networking
Provide leadership Role to Educate
Motivate Those with an Environmental Interest (give a personal reason to participate)
Develop Action Plans

Participants: Britt Roscoe, Brogan Anderson*, Dan Kustudich*, Gloria Shanks, Glyn Bissix*
Gordon Haliburton*, John Janmaat, John MacLachlan*, Jon Percy, Karen Beazley*, Louise Watson*
Madonna Spinazola, Munju Ravindra*, Robin Marshall*, Scott Brown*, Sue Bissix, Suzie Blatt,
Tom Herman*, Tony Bowron*, Vicky Stiles

Summary of Discussion   (notes compiled by Jon Percy)

1.0 What are the issues?
Eastern Kings County is one of the fastest growing regions of the province, outside of Metro Halifax. Understandably there is considerable concern about the direction and pace of this growth, particularly among those who originally moved to the area because of its more rural ambience. Improved access resulting from the planned upgrade of the highway link with the Halifax metro area will undoubtedly increase the pace of this growth even more.

There was some discussion in the group about the exact meaning of the term "development" as it means different things to different people. It was generally agreed that growth/development is probably inevitable and that this is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Development can be positive and involve improvements in the quality of life of residents. It was pointed out that the original French root of the word develop implies an unwrapping or an unfolding. In this sense it implies unfolding of a plan and an evolution towards something that is hopefully positive.

One of the main concerns of the group is the way that "development" is presently unfolding in the region. It is felt that the principal driving force is economics and money and that little attention is paid to the question of the broader aspects of quality of life of the residents. All too often development is guided solely by the desire of local officials to expand the residential and business tax base in the community as rapidly as they can. They regard this expansion in population and economic activity as the principal criterion of their success as community leaders. Participants felt that we also have to take into account the need to improve the quality of life and not just increase growth for the sake of growth. We have to move away from an overemphasis on tax generating growth towards a planning process that emphasizes sustainable development. There needs to be a move away from the present short-term economics driven planning towards a longer term planning process with a broader outlook.

One of the difficulties in changing the direction of current development activities is that they tend to "privatize the profits and commonize the costs". In other words, the benefits flow to a few and the negative impacts are thinly spread over many. In most development projects a relatively small number of people stand to gain a great deal of profit from the venture and thus have a high degree of motivation to implement it. However, often-large numbers of people are negatively affected or inconvenienced by the development project, but only to a relatively small degree individually. They are not sufficiently affected as individuals to actively oppose the project and it is hard to motivate them to take a stand. Thus their quality of life is incrementally reduced over time without them really being aware of it happening.

We need to look at ways of evolving as a complete community, not just as an economic entity. This means that we need to manage development on a broader scale and over a longer term, not just in the piecemeal short-term manner that now occurs. The negative impacts of development have to be identified and evaluated and where possible eliminated or reduced. We need to focus more on assessing both the positive and negative aspects of development using broader criteria of measurement. Local governments should be doing an honest assessment of development that considers the value of all ecosystem components, not just the tax-based components. At present we are not measuring the full impacts of development because we consider economic indicators almost exclusively.

2.0 What needs to be done:
There is great concern that there is not an adequate or effective system for protecting land from inappropriate developments. The conversion of farmland to golf courses or put to other non-agricultural uses was cited as one problem area. There is great need for ecologically and socially sustainable land use planning, not just economically viable. More generally it was felt that it has to be widely recognized that "non-development" of some areas may be a positive benefit to the whole community. There are not enough properly protected terrestrial and marine areas to protect native animal and plant species and ensure conservation of biodiversity. There needs to be a systematic plan to protect ecological integrity and the functioning of critical ecosystem processes. We have to consider the value of "ecosystem services" in our long-term planning. Provision also has to be made for continued and expanded access to coastal areas and undeveloped areas for low-impact recreational use.

More areas need to be "set aside" and protected from development. However, it was emphasized that simply establishing protected areas is not enough. They have to be viewed as an integral part of the whole landscape development and planning process. The role of the "working landscape" of the region also has to be considered. It could be that some important ecological processes/services or valued ecosystem components could be protected within a working landscape. In potential protected areas we need to identify and protect life-sustaining ecological processes.

One difficulty is that large areas of the province are privately owned and only a small proportion is crown or public land. A high value is placed on the private ownership of land in the area. Thus to protect some sensitive or valued landscapes it may be necessary to consider purchase, lease or developing easements on these areas by communities or land trust groups. We need to define more precisely what elements in the natural landscape we particularly value and then work to shield those elements from the adverse impacts of development in the region. We also need to investigate ways to more efficiently use the available land to meet social, ecological and economic needs.

In order to protect our quality of life well into the future we as citizens have to take some responsibility by participating in the planning process. We need to "find our voice and use it". A great deal has to be done in educating ourselves and our fellow citizens about the nature and scope of the problem and what might be viable solutions to work towards. Public education, communication and consultation should be an integral part of the planning process. We also need better planning of land management and more effort needs to be devoted to assessment and measurement of the impacts of development.

3.0 Who needs to be involved:
This is a complex problem and many groups and individuals will have to be involved in finding and implementing solutions. Different players will have to be involved in the different aspects of the issue. These players include governments at all levels, larger business enterprises such as Minas Basin Pulp and power and Michelin Tire. There is also a role for academics and students. Groups such as the Nature Conservancy, community health board and local Recreation associations also need to be involved. We also need to include forestry and agricultural groups in the discussion.

4.0 How to implement:
A first step would be to identify all those areas that are particularly valued by the community, particularly any that are presently threatened. Groups such as the Blomidon Naturalists, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Nature Trust chapter in Kings Co. could be helpful in this task. There is also a need to spread the word about the issue among our neighbours and co-workers. To do this we need to develop a sound communications and education strategy involving the creation of educational material such as pamphlets, fact sheets, newsletter and even a web site. The biggest difficulty will be finding volunteers who are not already stretched too thin.

Participants: Barry Jones, Bill Whitman*, D. Scott Cook*, Jamie Gibson*, Pam Comeau*, Paul MacKay*, Reginald Walsh*

Summary of Discussion  (notes compiled by Jamie Gibson)

There were seven people in this discussion group. Most of the discussion focused around the issues of fisheries management, defining the relationship between DFO and user groups, information exchange and who should assume the responsibility for funding fisheries management and conservation.

1.1 Status of Resources: Historical and Present
The status of fish and fishery resources around the Minas Basin is not well understood. Some fisheries that were once important no longer exist, and the viability and potential of existing fisheries appears to be unknown. Management is reactive, not proactive. When evaluating the status of fishery resources, the status historically should be considered so that targets can include the potential of a fishery could be developed. Where stocks are at low levels, maintaining the status quo should not be the management objective, and do not meet ecosystem objectives.

1.2 Ecosystem Objectives Necessary
Fisheries management needs to consider ecosystem-level impacts and objectives. This is mandated under the Oceans Act, but not often practiced. Objectives must be quantifiable so that the effectiveness of management initiatives can be evaluated.

1.3 Definition of the Roles of Government and User Groups
Much of the discussion focused on the relationship between government (mainly DFO) and user groups, and the exchange of information between groups. Availability of information about stock status, water and habitat quality and other issues needs to be available in a manner that is free, timely, and transparent. Data should be in the public domain.

1.4 Fish Habitat and Habitat Restoration
As well as the status of fisheries resources, the status of fish habitat needs to be inventoried. The resulting database could be used to prioritise habitat for conservation, protection and restoration.

1.5 Importance of Community Input and Information from Fishers
The group felt that input from the community and fishers was not adequately included in fisheries assessment and management.

1.6 Economic Viability of Fisheries and Community Impacts
Not withstanding the need for ecosystem level objectives, fisheries need to be economically viable (some quotas are so low that fishing is not worthwhile). When fisheries collapse, there are community impacts that extend beyond the fishers. Links between fisheries and communities need to be identified and included when assessing the importance of a fishery.

1.7 Resources for Management
The issue of funding for resource management was a recurring theme throughout the discussion. Some member of the group thought that this should be primarily DFO's (or government) responsibility, while others thought that vested interest groups should assist with funding. Where fishers and community groups play a role in data collection and assessments, the costs of fishery management potentially can be reduced.

2.0 What needs to be done:
The issues above should be addressed through an integrated resource management strategy involving government, stakeholders and community groups. To facilitate the development of this strategy, a working group should b developed to:

2.1 Identify stakeholders
As a first step, stakeholders should be identified. These include fishers, government, community groups, non-governmental organizations and non-fishing industries that affect fish, fish habitat and water quality, as well as others. The group agreed that many people affected by fisheries and water management are not members of groups. The strategy should therefore include a way input from individuals to be included, although further discussion is required to determine how this should be achieved.

2.2 Leadership and the Role of Government (DFO)
An organization or group to take the lead role needs to be identified. If this is not DFO, then the relationship between DFO, other governmental organizations and the group needs to be established.

2.4 Facilitate Information Exchange
Members of the discussion group expressed frustration when attempting to obtain data and information from DF0 and other governmental organizations. Facilitating information exchange should be a high priority.

3. 0 Who Needs to be Involved:
- fishers
- government
- community groups
- non-governmental organizations and academic institutions
- non-fishing industries that affect fish, fish habitat and water quality
- individuals?

4. 0 How to Implement:
The BoFEP Minas Basin Working Group has put together a proposal to examine the feasibility of integrated fisheries management in the Minas Basin. If approved, this could be a starting point for the above actions.

Participants: Brenda Davidson, Cameron McQueen*, David Hope-Simpson, Delancey Bishop*, Jim Wolford
Joan Bromled?*, John Abati*, John Connor, Keiko Lin*, Loran Gillis, Lorraine McQueen*, Maxine Westhead
Michele Kustudich, Oscar Huntley, Pat Hinch, S. hauer, Scott Burbidge, Susan Gore

Summary of Discussion  (notes compiled by Pat Hinch and Maxine Westhead)

1.0 What are the Issues:
-Sustainability (ecological and economic - all- water, recreational, health, spiritual, habitat, employment) - rate of cutting
-Deforestation (cutting methods including clear cutting  - results/effects
-Land ownership
-Provincial forestry policy - need a better understanding of any provincial policies (trees more than products)
-Who are the forests for? - who is benefiting from it? (human and non-human)
-Reforestation (rate of, effective?)
-Stewardship (public& personal)
-Education

2.0 Who needs to be Involved:
-Corporations (including end users)
-Municipalities - all levels of government
-*Land owners
-Citizens
-All
-Industries
-End users/consumers
-Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq
-Ecology and Environmental Groups (EAC, NSEN, NGOs)

3.0 Resources Needed:
-Current maps, inventory - type information
-Identify best practices
-Learning from other areas (partnerships that have worked, etc.)
-Improvement in Legislation (also end goal)
-Genuine Progress Index (GPI)
-Education
-Product inventory
-how much is exported / in what form?
-getting a clear "big picture"
-Woodlot owners and organizations
-Existing networks/structures
-Rebels and activists
-Paradigm shift
-Education/publicity
-Keep using/use political process
-Stewardship
-Youth - teach them about political process
-Maritime Lumber Bureau has guidelines
-Provincial government
-$$$

4.0 How to Implement:
-Conference/meeting with all key players identified (2 yrs)
-consensus and actions
-Brief inventory/understanding of current forestry groups/activities (1 yr)
-Identify/create incentive programs ($, publicity, taxes, etc.) - look at examples in Ontario (1 yr)
-Improved legislation (1 yr)

Participants: Alex Levy, Arnold Forsythe*, David Stiles, Delmar Jordan*, Denise Roy, Donald Hendricks*,
Doug Morse, Earle Illsley, Elaine Hendricks*, Garfield Whitman*, Gary Cochrane*, Greg MacLellan*
Gregg Morrison, James Borden, Karen MacLellan*, Katherine Wile?, Keith Fuller, Kevin Blair, Mint MacInnes?
Peter Bagnell*, Peter Wells, Ralph Burt*, Richard Skinner, Ted Stoddart, Terry Henniger

Summary of Discussion  (notes compiled by Peter Wells)

There were approx. 30 people in this group. There was vigorous and at times impassioned discussion around the guiding questions. Everyone participated. The raw notes (Appendix 1) have been reorganized for logic and clarity. Major discussion points as recalled i.e. the opinions expressed by the group, are supplemented with text wherever possible. The points are not listed in priority within a topic. It was decided early in the discussion that the sewage issue was very important but was one part of the broader water issue; the group decided to stay with the broader view of issues and needs.

• Source identification of pathogens and contaminants
• Influences/sources of contaminants
• Quality parameters of concern.

[A systematic description of the sources of contaminants and other threats, such as pathogens from agricultural operations, that enter or potentially enter water – fresh and salt – is needed for the watershed around Minas Basin. The effects they are having or could have to aquatic resources should be documented; sewage and municipal effluent was discussed in this context. A listing of water quality parameters that are important to the watershed should be provided to citizens and used as a guide to monitoring water quality. A Minas Basin Water Report for the watershed is needed, covering quality and quantity, as well as fresh, estuarine and marine waters.]

• Capacity/quantity/quality of groundwater.
• Need for mapping the aquifers (groundwater)

[There are many concerns about the state of the groundwater, from threats to its quality to the need to know the location and capacity of the primary aquifers. The feeling was that farm operations, especially big operations, were damaging groundwater, through the seepage of manure and chemicals. The group supported the idea for a preparation of a thorough overview of groundwater in the Minas Basin region.]

• Enforcement and Improvement of enforcement
• Need for standards (regulations and monitoring)
• Ownership of water resource.
• Commercial use of water (exports).

[It was considered by some that there was enough legislation, federal and provincial, to protect water supplies for drinking and agriculture, from surface and aquifers sources, but that the legislation is not being utilized efficiently. There is a need for standards, rather than just relying on the CCME guidelines. Ownership issues are becoming important, as there are local bottling operations and the products are exported. Above all, political and agency will is needed to use the law where necessary to protect water.]

• Assessment documents (lots of data but lack of information)
• Education/public awareness

[The public requires access to the various databases on water quantity and quality, mostly held by government departments. Most importantly, they need assurance that the data are being moved into information reports; the group discussed the need for State of the Environment – State of Water reports at length. These reports would be important to the continued need to educate the wider public about water issues, and raise public consciousness about the water issue(s). The reports would also be valuable in the schools.]

• Water Conservation Strategies – future strategies, all uses.
• Need for environmental assessments (old and new projects)
• Future development; re Highway 101.

[The region needs a Water Strategy to guide the use and protection of this valuable resource; without one, all activities such as above are done in a vacuum. There is a need to have formal environmental assessments (EIAs) of all projects affecting water resources, including on some already established projects (e.g. industries). There is a real concern expressed about the influence of future development of the region, for homes and industry, on the water resources; an example is the new highway 101 as it is twinned down to and down the Annapolis Valley.]

2.0 What Needs to be Done:

2.1 Leadership

• Who should lead
• Where to show the leadership
• Community based leadership

[The water issue requires new and invigorated leadership if the above issues are to addressed and resolved satisfactorily. There was dissatisfaction with the provincial leadership on this issue, and recognition that the federal government no longer has the capacity to lead (given the Inland Waters Directorate – Environment Canada demise in the early 1990s). Some form of community board, with powers, would be best, to show leadership and direction on all water issues.]

2.2 Communication

• Links between community groups and law makers (govts.)
• Better communications between communities and government.

[Communication on water issues and activities, across the communities around Minas Basin, is essential. More communication between communities and government(s), including the legal branches, is required. The communities want assurance that they know the state of the water resources and that they are being managed and protected appropriately.]

2.3 The Water Issues

• Prioritization of issues.
• Clarification of issues.

[The issues need further in-depth discussion and some priority given to them and the ensuing actions. The priority issues from the community perspective will be clearer from all of the workshops (my comment), but also from the exercise of preparing a State of Water report for the watershed. Everyone felt they would benefit from more detailed and prepared discussion of the water issues, and that this would influence the priorities in the "water agenda".]

2.4 The Law

• Use existing laws.
• Clarify boundaries of jurisdiction.
• Better coordination of different levels of government.
• Protection of people who speak out.

[The group felt strongly about applying existing laws to protect and conserve water resources. They felt that the federal-provincial-municipal jurisdictional responsibilities and issues needed clarification, and should not lead to further delay on the actions. Government agencies should work more cooperatively on this issue. People should be informed as to how this is proceeding. In particular, water specialists or others who speak out on water issues should not be penalized, as was the case recently in Canada on health i.e. drug, issues.]

2.5 Resources

• Funding/people

[The water issue needs serious funding from governments for programs, as well as for the personnel hiring/re-staffing of water groups previously reduced by budgetary cutbacks. The "capacity issue" i.e. our collective capability in the province to deal with water issues, was considered very serious.]

3.0 Who Needs to be Involved:

• Community stewardship board.
• Improve government-will and citizen-will to act on issues.
• NGOs, all levels of government.
• Include all parties in these groups.

[There needs to be a coalition of efforts on this issue. Formation of a Community Water Board (s) should be considered, with representatives from all stakeholders, and ensuring that citizens are directly involved in water issues and their resolution and long-term care.]

• Produce good documents on WQ but whom should they go to, and will they make a difference?
• Get credible messages on the WQ issue "out" to governments, etc.

[This is a communications need. The message of community concern about water issues should be moved to governments, as well as wide distribution and discussion of the Water Report(s) once they are produced. ]

4.0 Next Steps:

• Use coalition of existing groups (i.e. have a united voice).
• Work together.
• Review existing models to apply in this situation i.e. other citizen groups elsewhere in Canada have dealt with similar issues, so learn from their experiences.
• Education.
• Review/interpret existing water quality/quantity data (i.e. prepare the water report(s)).
• Use of report cards (i.e. how well or not we are doing on each water issue, in the watershed).

[The six points were considered to be the starting point for action on this sewage/water quality issue in the Minas Basin watershed. Details need to be worked out.]

• Quality parameters of concern.
• Influences/sources of contaminants
• Future development; re Highway 101.
• Need for standards (regulations and monitoring)
• Enforcement
• Assessment documents (lots of data but lack of information)
• Ownership of water resource.
• Capacity/quantity/quality of groundwater.
• Need for mapping the aquifers (groundwater)
• Need for environmental assessments (old and new projects)
• Education/public awareness
• Enforcement
• Water Conservation Strategies – future strategies, all uses.
• Commercial use of water (exports).
• Source identification of pathogens and contaminants
• Improvement of enforcement

• Where to show the leadership
• Who should lead
• Protection of people who speak out
• Community based leadership
• Links between community groups and law makers (govts.).
• Use existing laws

3. Addressing the Issues

• Better communications between communities and government.
• Clarify boundaries of jurisdiction.
• Better coordination of different levels of government
• Funding/people.

3. Involvement

• NGOs, all levels of government.
• Improve government-will and citizen-will to act on issues.
• Produce good documents on WQ but whom should they go to, and will they make a difference?
• Get credible messages on the WQ issue "out" to governments, etc.
• Community stewardship board.
• Include all parties in these groups.

3. What next?

• Education.
• Use of report cards.
• Review/interpret existing data.
• Use coalition of existing groups (united voice).
• Work together.
• Review existing models to apply in this situation.

3. How to Address the Issues

• Prioritization of issues.
• Clarification of issues.
• Water quality (issues) (lead to) management (includes/and) research.

  ---

  Executive Summary of Wofville Community Forum

  Minas Basin Community Forum, Wolfville NS - January 24^th, 2002

  On Thursday January 24^th, 2002, over 100 people gathered to participate in a Community Forum designed to initiate real actions toward sustainable management of the natural and human resources of the Minas Basin Watershed. The Forum was meant to build on current and past initiatives by government and non-government organizations aimed at identifying issues of concern to the residents of the watershed. The structure of the Forum included an Open House with displays, followed by a discussion period where issues were identified and discussed in small groups.

  The Open House was a success with 23 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 Dr. Graham Daborn, Chair of BoFEP, giving a brief introduction to BoFEP, 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. The full results of this exercise are displayed in the chart below:

  Issues Summary – Minas Basin Community Forum, Wolfville

  Issue	Number of Dots Posted
  	Priority #1	Priority #2	Priority #3	Total
  Agricultural Practices	14	30	16	60
  Bioinvasions	2		1	3
  Coastal Access	2	1	12	15
  Coastal Effects of Climate Change	2	6	16	24
  Development	13	11	8	32
  Fisheries Management	6	6	6	18
  Forestry Practices	17	13	17	47
  Mining		1	1	2
  Sewage Treatment/Water Quality	36	13	5	54
  Solid Waste Management	2	5	6	13
  Tourism		4	4	8
  Issues Added by Participants:
  Biodiversity and Health	1	2		3
  Detrimental Soil Changes (from Agricultural Sprays and fertilizers)	1			1
  Toxins from Anti-fouling Paint Products		1		1
  Ship/Watercraft Sewage and Waste			1	1

  Based on these results five Focus Groups were formed: Agriculture, Development, Fisheries Management, Forestry Practices and Sewage/Water quality. A summary of discussions held by each Focus Group follows.

  Agriculture Practices:

  The Agriculture Practices working group identified a large number of issues ranging from genetically modified organisms to protection of groundwater recharge areas. The most general theme, and the one which most of the issues could be related to, is the sustainability of agriculture, not only in terms of how it is presently practiced, but also in terms of how it will be impacted by large scale global changes, such as globalization of economic markets and climate change. A major, more local, issue identified was the quality and quantity of water available for agriculture use, which has become a major concern as a result of the unusually dry summers that have occurred in the Annapolis Valley over the last several years.

  Development:

  Eastern Kings County is one of the fastest growing regions of the province, outside of Metro Halifax. Understandably there is considerable concern about the direction and pace of this growth. It was generally agreed that growth/development is probably inevitable and that this is not necessarily a bad thing in itself if it takes place with careful planning and care for the quality of life of residents. We have to move away from the current overemphasis on tax generating growth towards a planning process that emphasizes sustainable development. We need to look at ways of evolving as a complete community, not just as an economic entity. Local governments should be doing an honest assessment of development that considers the value of all ecosystem components, not just the tax-based components. The negative impacts of development have to be identified and evaluated and where possible eliminated or reduced. There needs to be a systematic plan to protect ecological integrity and the functioning of critical ecosystem processes. We have to consider the value of "ecosystem services" in our long-term planning. Provision also has to be made for continued and expanded access to coastal areas and undeveloped areas for low-impact recreational use. More areas need to be "set aside" and protected from development. We need to define more precisely what elements in the natural landscape we particularly value and then work to shield those elements from the adverse impacts of development in the region. The role of the "working landscape" of the region also has to be considered. We need to investigate ways to more efficiently use the available land to meet social, ecological and economic needs. Public education, communication and consultation should be an integral part of the planning process. We also need better planning of land management and more effort needs to be devoted to assessment and measurement of the impacts of development.

  Fisheries Management:

  Most of the discussion in this group focused around the issues of fisheries management, defining the relationship between DFO and the user groups, information exchange and who should assume the responsibility for funding fisheries management and conservation. Issues that were identified included the need to review historical and present status of fish and fishery resources, to consider ecosystem-level impacts and objectives, to inventory the status of fisheries resources and habitat, to have more input from community and fishers, the need of more funding for resource management and to better understand the importance of a fishery to its community. The group agreed the issues identified should be addressed through an integrated resource management strategy involving government, stakeholders and community groups, and also that a working group be developed to identify stakeholders, an organization or group to take a leadership role, to identify sources of funding and to help facilitate information exchange from government organizations. The BoFEP Minas Basin Working Group has put together a proposal to examine the feasibility of integrated fisheries management in the Minas Basin. If approved, this could be a starting point for the above actions.

  Forestry Practices:

  The forestry session identified eight key issues of concern: forest sustainability (ecologically, socially and economically), deforestation, land ownership, understanding of provincial forestry policy, and the human and non-human value of forests, reforestation, stewardship and education. All people should be involved to help to resolve the issues.  Participants identified a variety of resources that are needed including: current inventories, knowledge, and information on forest management practices/guidelines, legislation, and existing structures and networks; education; stewardship; paradigm shifts; and funding.    In terms of next steps, participants recommended a conference/meeting of all key players, consensus and action, and the need for inventories of current forestry groups/activities, incentive programs (in funding, publicity and taxes), and improved legislation.

  Sewage/Water Quality:

  The water quality issue in its full breadth was discussed, sewage being considered one part only. Four issues were identified – surface water quality and quantity, groundwater, legal questions and information and education. A Minas Basin Water Report covering the watershed is needed; it should include a description of sources of threats to water, a listing of water quality parameters as a guide to monitoring, and a review of the location and condition of groundwater sources. More effective use of current legislation, water standards rather than guidelines, and a resolution of ownership issues are needed. Public access to water information should be improved, including periodic State of Water reports aimed at the public. The region requires a Water Strategy, leadership on the issue (perhaps through a community board), improved communication, and more action and funding by all levels of government to protect and conserve water resources.

  Summary

  Each Focus Group was able to identify specific actions that could to be taken to address the issues identified. In late spring when all the initial Community Forums have been completed, the Minas Basin Working Group will be holding discussions with those people who identified themselves as the leads for each Focus Group. The purpose of these discussions will be to developing strategies to implement these actions. If you wish to take part in these discussions, please contact Nancy Roscoe-Huntley, BoFEP Secretariat at 902-585-1113.

  Detailed notes of each Focus Group and a full report on Community Forum are available on the BoFEP web page, or contact the BoFEP Secretariat at 902-585-1113 to ask for hard copies of these items.

  ---