Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery, Canada

RESOURCE:

The resource appropriated from Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery is whitefish. The appropriation resource consists of approximately 65km of James Bay coast plus the mouth of the LaGrande River and 5 km up the LaGrande River. The boundary is established by the Cree, who for a variety of reasons, primarily concerning technology and convenience, have not fished beyond these boundaries.

SCREENER:

Case: Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery, Canada

The information regarding the following common-pool resource system was taken from empirical evidence from a field setting. Data on the system was extracted from a journal article. Currently, there are no additional documents to cite which may provide further information about this common-pool resource.

These documents describe three resources in detail. The primary resource is the Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery, situated in Chisasibi, Quebec of Canada. More generally, it is located in North America. The system's sector is that of fisheries. Relatively good information has been collected about the stakes of participants who appropriate from Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery. The condition of this resource is well understood. Complete information is available regarding the strategies used by key groups interacting with the system. There is thorough documentation of the operational rules for this resource. This is the result of a high level of confidence that the authors who recorded the features of Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery have a complete knowledge of its particulars. Furthermore, the authors have provided sufficient data to formulate a structured coding process.

The Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery covers an unknown area. At the beginning of the period discussed by the authors, there was a moderately abundant supply of biological and physical resources withdrawn compared to the number of units available. Appropriator teams for the resource are always formally organized.

The Cree Indians of Chisasibi (formerly Fort George), Quebec fish in James Bay. This case is an example of successful communal management of a fishery, if successful may be defined as no pollution or overuse problems. Because the Cree fishers and their families consume almost all the fish caught, this is a subsistence fishery, and Canadian government regulations do not cover it. The Cree have evolved their own system of rules to manage their fishery. These rules control types of technology, fishing spots, size of catch, and access to the fishery. (see also doc 223)

CITATION(S):

Berkes, Fikret (1977) "Fishery Resource Use in a Subarctic Indian Community." HUMAN ECOLOGY 5(4): 289-307.*

Berkes, Fikret (1987) "Common Property Resource and Cree Indian Fisheries in Subarctic Canada." In THE QUESTION OF THE COMMONS: THE CULTURE AND ECOLOGY OF COMMUNAL RESOURCES, edited by Bonnie J. McCay and James M. Acheson, 66-91. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Berkes, Fikret (1982) "Preliminary Impacts of the James Bay Hydroelectric Project, Quebec, on Estuarine Fish and Fisheries." ARCTIC 35(4): 524-530.*

RESOURCE INFO:

The resource appropriated from Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery is whitefish. It is produced biologically and is a renewable moving (fugitive) unit. The appropriation resource consists of approximately 65km of James Bay coast plus the mouth of the LaGrande River and 5 km up the LaGrande River. The boundary is established by the Cree, who for a variety of reasons, primarily concerning technology and convenience, have not fished beyond these boundaries.

The boundary of this resource has natural/constructed and institutional arrangements which do not limit entry. The boundaries of this resource are smaller than the location, and exist in one country, and are not divided among multiple general purpose local jurisdictions at a single level. The boundaries of this resource are independent of a development project designed by non-residents.

There are distinct and stable micro-environmental or ecological zones within this resource (highly confident). The quality and/or quantity of units is not regularly better in some of the zones than in others (educated guess). The variance in quality between the zones has at some point in time created conflict among appropriators.

There are not strategic points within the resource where the main flow of the Whitefish can be controlled (highly confident). There is considerable, and predictable variation over space in the availability of Whitefish within the resource (highly confident). There is considerable, but unpredictable variation in the flow of Whitefish within a single year (inferred). There is considerable, but highly unpredictable variation in the flow of Whitefish from year to year (inferred).

The bottom topography of Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery is not indicated in the case study information.

If no rules in use were being followed, the relationship among the appropriation processes would have conflictual effects (inferred).

The boundaries of the production resource do not coincide with the boundaries of the location. Rather, the location is within the boundaries of the appropriation resource (educated guess). The boundaries of the production resource partially overlap the boundaries of the location, but the two boundaries are not equivalent (educated guess). The boundaries of the distribution resource are not identical to the boundaries of the appropriation resource, but appropriation is within the boundaries of distribution (educated guess). The boundaries of the production resource have a relationship to the boundaries of the distribution resource that was not indicated in this case study.

LOCATION:

The appropriation resources are situated 1000 km north of Montreal. The location consists of a permanent settlement, Fort George, Quebec, and more than 65 km of James Bay coast. It includes the La Grande river on which Fort George is located, and several lakes around Fort George. The boundaries of the location are politically defined. A treaty established in 1975 provides the Cree Indians of James Bay exclusive hunting, fishing, and trapping on a defined portion of coast and land. The appropriation resource present in this location consists of the Whitefish and Cisco fisheries (coding), as well as the Brooktrout fishery, and the longnose sucker. Regarding the use of the irrigation system, there were conflictual effects throughout the entire period in the relationships among appropriation processes.

The system is located within one country. Within this country, the system's location is not divided among several general purpose local jurisdictions at the same level. A permanent population lives year round in this location (highly confident). There is frequent contact and communication between people in this location and officials in a nearby administrative center . This location is also characterized by an economy that is changing and relatively autonomous with respect to other economic networks during most of the time period (confident).

The latitude of this location is 78.40'W 79.10'W .5, and its longitude is 53.30'N 54.0' N .5. The elevation of this location is 0 meters. The highest elevation is 0. The lowest elevation of this location is 0. The region's average annual rainfall is . The region's average annual evapotranspiration is . The distribution of rainfall and evapotranspiration per month is as follows:

January precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

February precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

March precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

April precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

May precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

June precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

July precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

August precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

September precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

October precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

November precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

December precipitation: N/A, evapotraspiration: N/A

RESOURCE:

The resource appropriated from Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery is whitefish. The appropriation resource consists of approximately 65km of James Bay coast plus the mouth of the LaGrande River and 5 km up the LaGrande River. The boundary is established by the Cree, who for a variety of reasons, primarily concerning technology and convenience, have not fished beyond these boundaries.

OPERATIONAL LEVEL:

TYPE OF SITUATION

The processes described in the related documents are primarily related to appropriation alone. The formal owner(s) of the resource discussed in this study is a local government. The set of individuals who have rights to withdraw from this resource is well-defined. As of the beginning of this period, the owners are exercising (or attempting to exercise de jure) and effective in gaining closed access to this resource. Since the beginning of this period, the appropriators are exercising (or attempting to exercise de jure) effective closed access to this resource.

EVENTS MARKING THE BEGINNING ACTION SITUATION

It is estimated that the operational level coded on this form ended in -2. The estimated duration of the patterns that are described in this form is 26 to 50 years. Throughout the duration there were no changes made in operational, collective, or consititutional rules. There was no change in resource size or structure. There was an enhancement of physical capabilities to withdraw units (e.g. introduction of turbine pump) from the resource during the time of this study. There was no substantial external change in the value of the units appropriated. The quantity of units available did not change due to a change in appropriation patterns of other appropriators' withdrawals from the same production or distribution resource. There were no new groups starting to withdraw units from the appropriation resource. There was no recorded change to one or more variables internal to the operational level. The author begins the description of this case at this point in history. The author begins at this point in history because B6.

CONDITIONS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS FORM*

For biological resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was moderately abundant (educated guess). For biological resources at the end of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available was moderately abundant (confident). For physical resources at the beginning of this period, the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units was moderately abundant (educated guess). For physical resources at the end of the period the balance between the quantity of units withdrawn and the quantity of units needed, given the usual patterns of use for these units, was moderately abundant (confident).

The following includes the available statistics on the use of this resource at the beginning of the time period, followed by the end of the time period:

Tons of fish harvested per year at the beginning of the period: 100

Tons of fish harvested per year at the end of the period: 100

At the beginning of this period, the units were sexually mature at this size or age (highly confident). At the end of this period, the units were sexually mature at this size or age (highly confident).

*In fisheries and other biological systems, this is the maximum sustainable number of units. In irrigation, this refers to the optimal water requirements of the crops in the established fields served by this system.

At the beginning of the period, the units were predominantly sold in local markets, and also consumed by appropriators and families.

At the end of the period, the units were predominantly consumed by appropriators and families, and also sold in local markets.

As of the beginning of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was high (educated guess). As of the end of the period, the quality of the units being withdrawn from the resource was not included in the study. At the beginning of the period of the study, there was no information provided regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources, due to the way units are being appropriated. At the end of the period of the study, there was no information provided in the case study regarding whether or not there are problems of pollution in this or other resources due to the way units are appropriated. As of the beginning of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was quite low (inferred). As of the end of the period, the extent of technical externalities resulting from the appropriation activities of participants from this resource was quite low (inferred). At the beginning of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources (educated guess). At the end of this study, the interference between the appropriation technology for this resource and the appropriation processes for other resources in this location had no effect on the appropriation resources (educated guess). At the beginning of this period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (inferred). At the end of the period the appropriators shared moderate to high levels of mutual trust (e.g. oral promises given high credence) (highly confident). ## Unknown markup: Start ##By the end of this period a definite change had occurred in the property rights regime related to the appropriation resource (highly confident). At the end of this period the owners were exercising, or attempting to exercise, de jure and effective closed access to this resource (highly confident). At the end of the period the appropriators were exercising, or attempting to exercise, de jure and effective closed access to this resource (highly confident).

INFORMATION LEVELS

There is no information in the study to indicate the availability of maps or charts of the appropration resource for use by the appropriators. Maps and/or charts of the production and distribution resources are not documented as being available, or unavailable in this case study. The appropriators of this resource can be seen by each other while withdrawing units from the resource (highly confident). No appropriators are in radio communication with each other while appropriating from the resource. There are actions being taken, by appropriators or officials, to generate information about the condition of the resource (inferred). There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the withdrawals from this resource kept in a systematic way. There was no information in the study about whether or not there are records of the physical factors which directly affected the resource kept in a systematic way. There is no information in the study to indicate whether or not records are kept in a language accessible to most of the appropriators. There are arenas being used for the exchange of information about conditions of the resource (highly confident). Appropriators get together to discuss mutual problems of the resource at a frequency which was not included in the case study. The appropriators have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of this resource (inferred).

POTENTIAL ACTIONS AND LEVELS OF CONTROL

The quality or quantity of the units available to the appropriators are not adversely affected by the strategies of prior appropriators (educated guess). There are not problems of pollution resulting from activities of others who are not appropriators of this resource or inhabitants of this location (e.g. acid rain, sewage disposal) (inferred). There appears to be an insurance mechanism available to the appropriators related to variability of income from the resource (highly confident).

PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

Differences between subgroups relating to gender identification does not affect communication (educated guess). Differences between subgroups relating to ethnic identification does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to clan identification does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to racial identification does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to caste identification does not affect communication (inferred). Differences between subgroups relating to religious identification does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to languages spoken does not exist (highly confident). Differences between subgroups relating to general cultural views of the resource system and its use does not affect communication (inferred). Differences between subgroups relating to any problems that affect communication does not exist (highly confident).

The general manner in which appropriators related to one another during this study is a relatively positive, reciprocal manner -- the presumption was made that long-term relationships are involved and positive actions are undertaken without a specific expectation of return (inferred). The documents present evidence of specific types of cooperative activities between the appropriators related to other local resources, as well as evidence that the appropriators have a general cultural pattern that stressed various types of cooperative activities besides the management of this resource (highly confident). If someone violated the rules-in-use related to the appropriation process from this resource, it is very likely that he/she would encounter social sanctions imposed by other appropriators (who are not filling posititions as official monitors) (highly confident).

POSITIONS AND PARTICIPANTS

At the end of the period studied there was no information coded to indicate whether or not the position of non-appropriator (individuals prevented from using the resource) existed. At the beginning of the period there was a general estimate of some undocumented number appropriators. There was a general estimate of 201-500 appropriators at the end of the period (highly confident). A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was not included in the case study, at the beginning of the period. A general estimate of the number of participants in the team appropriation process was not included in the case study, at the end of the period. The "official" position of monitor (apart from the willingness of all appropriators to monitor) does not exist (inferred). This position monitors rules-in-use.

The appropriators monitor the appropriation activities of each other apart from the monitoring of any "official" guards (inferred).

NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SUBGROUPS

There will be 1 subgroup form(s) completed in relation to this operational level form. The ID number(s) of the subgroup(s) coded are as follows: 11 - 0 - 0 - 0

EVALUATION OF RESULTS

There are no appropriators who were consistently disadvantaged in this period (educated guess). The relatively worst off appropriators have not been cut out of their benefits from this resource or substantially harmed (educated guess).

AUTHOR'S EVALUATION AND CAUSAL ASSUMPTIONS

In this coding form the author focuses on the readers' concept of results and the evaluation of results.

Berkes favorably evaluates the balance between withdrawn and units available, physical characteristics of units withdrawn, and the condition of the resource in relation to the Cree. They are good managers of their fishery. The evaluation was based on size of group, cooperation, and distance from population center. The author evaluated this system to be of high efficiency, based on withdrawals per unit of effort compared with other similar fisheries, the condition of the resource, and the income of appropriators.. The author discusses withdrawals per unit of effort based on Indicator is catch per net set. Author compares withdrawal per unit of effort and compares with other fisheries -- Cree fishery has high withdrawal per unit of effort compared with other fisheries.

SUBGROUP:

Participants:

This appropriation group are the Cree Indians of Chisasibi (formerly Fort George) James Bay, Canada. The criteria for who is a member is well defined (highly confident). . This group ended with a membership of 387 (highly confident). An estimated 76%-90% of this group is literate in a language that records or publications about this resource and/or location (or other similar resources) is kept (educated guess).

The following statements characterize the composition of this subgroup's population with respect to variables that may affect the capacity to communicate effectively:

Ethnic or cultural identification causes no difference in composition (highly confident). Most members of this subgroup are ethnically identified as Eastern Woodland Cree. The difference in composition with regard to racial identification does not affect communication (highly confident). Most members of this subgroup are racially identified as Native American Indian. The difference in composition with regard to religious identification does not affect communication (inferred). There is no difference in composition with regard to languages spoken (inferred). The language spoken by most members of the subgroup is Cree.

. The head of an appropriation team is based on nuclear family relationships (highly confident).

Legal Rights:

Members of this subgroup have de jure rights of access (highly confident). The right to withdraw is held by this subgroup de jure (highly confident). Rights to participate in management of this resource is held de jure (highly confident). Exclusion from use of the entire resource is exercised de jure (highly confident). Members of this subgroup have de jure rights to decide who can be excluded from particular zones within the resource. (highly confident).

Stakes and Resources:

The length of time this subgroup has regularly appropriated from this resource is 501 through 1000 years (inferred). Around 91%-100% of members reside in or adjacent to this resource (highly confident). An estimated 4 months through 5 months are needed to build or to earn enough income to purchase the equipment for an appropriation team (confident). Given the assets of members, the capital required to set up an appropriation team does not place pressure upon the appropriators to get immediate returns from appropriation (educated guess). Most people in this subgroup are very dependent (i.e. most of the family income) on this resource (inferred). Around 91%-100% of this subgroup work a substantial amount of time in activities not associated with appropriation from this resource (highly confident). The proportion of this subgroup that currently appropriates similar units from other resources is less than 10% (highly confident). Given the economy of the location, the average annual family income (including all non-monetary forms of income) is considered average (inferred). The variance of the average annual family income across families is low (inferred). Over time the variance in average annual family income is low (inferred). Capital is owned by 76%-90% of this subgroup (confident). Alternatives for the supply unit are available at a high cost (inferred).

Potential Actions and Levels of Control:

A noticeable impact on the balance of the quantity of units withdrawn and the number of units available in this resource would occur in a drastic reduction of this subgroup's appropriation activities (inferred). Keeping in mind the physically available levels of withdrawal that are possible from this resource, the following shows the extent to which rules concerning different aspects of withdrawal constrain appropriation: technological rules moderately constrain (inferred), time limit rules cause unknown contraints, quantity limits which limit the range of choice heavily constrain (inferred), and marginal units or units obtained by increasing levels of appropriation have a low value immediate return (highly confident).

Technology:

The most recent technological change experienced by this subgroup was 11-25 years ago (educated guess). (educated guess). The appropriative power of the technology used does not threaten the balance between units withdrawn and units available even if no new users are added (inferred).

Strategies Adopted:

At the beginning of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was constant (inferred). At the end of the period the rate of unit withdrawals was constant (inferred). During this time period members have not invested resources, such as their own labor, in maintaining or improving the structure of the appropriation resource (inferred). Investment into constructing or improving production or distribution works for maintaining or improving their resource has not been made by members (inferred). Resources have been expended (including time) to avoid actions that would harm the structure of the appropriation resource (inferred). Members do not have access to an alternative source of supply (inferred). In characterizing the usual behavior of the members of this subgroup with respect to local operation level rules-in-use (other than in extreme shortage), it can be said that almost all of the members follow the rules set in place (highly confident). The level of infraction of members who are not rule followers is generally small (inferred). No action has been proposed to alter the operational or collective-choice rules affecting the appropriation from this resource (inferred).

Subgroup Results:

This subgroup appropriates 91%-100% of its total appropriated units at the end of this period (highly confident). By the end of this time period the appropriates from this resource have remained approximately constant (inferred). The absolute quantity of appropriation units obtained by this group has remained constant (inferred).

RESOURCE:

The resource appropriated from Chisasibi - James Bay Fishery is whitefish. The appropriation resource consists of approximately 65km of James Bay coast plus the mouth of the LaGrande River and 5 km up the LaGrande River. The boundary is established by the Cree, who for a variety of reasons, primarily concerning technology and convenience, have not fished beyond these boundaries.

OPERATIONAL RULES:

Concerning national collective choice relating to the resource, the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by national collective choice mechanism. Concerning regional collective choice, the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by regional collective choice mechanisms, however a regional level of government does exist.

With regard to local collective choice, a level of government or organization of appropriators exists at the location but the author provides NO information about operational level rules as devised by collective choice mechanisms.

Boundary Rules

The following rules define the requirements that must be met before individuals are eligible to harvest or withdraw units from the appropriation resource.

A rule exists requiring citizenship or residence of a local community. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring membership in an ethnic group. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring membership in an organization. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring use of a particular technology. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s).

A rule exists requiring appropriators specify the purpose for which the withdrawn units will be devoted. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s).

Entry rights are transmitted for an entire household or production unit (such as a boat) from one generation to another.

-2

Authority and Scope Rules

The default conditions for both authority and scope rules do not apply.

The following paragraphs include information on rules of 1 cycle(s).

Authority Rules:

The length of the withdrawing season is 0 week(s)..

There is a rule requiring withdrawal in a fixed order, based on the historical pattern of appropriation. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal at specific locations or spots, based on the historical pattern of appropriation. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule forbidding withdrawal whenever and wherever desired, based on the historical pattern of appropriation. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There is a rule requiring withdrawal units of a certain minimum size, based on technology used. This rule is enforced at the rules-in-use level(s), and is part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

There are other rules, based on the historical pattern of appropriation. Such rules are enforced at the rules-in-use level(s), and are part of the most restrictive, regularly adopted/used set of rules.

The authority and scope rules do not apply to whether or not certain subgroups received substantially unequal privileges, because there is only one subgroup.

Scope Rules:

Information Rules

Payoff Rules

The default condition, that all appropriators can retain whatever they can physically keep hold of and no external rewards, taxes, or sanctions are imposed is not imposed in this case. The authors have the following confidence level for the results of this section: confident.

The following percentages indicate the percentages assigned to individual positions. If more than one percentage is listed per position, the individual percentages refer to the different arrangements existing within the operational rules.

The primary and/or supplemental appropriation equipment is divided using a subsistence system; the catch is shared with family and others.

Aggregation Rules

Overall Questions About Rules Configuration

The general framework of the rules-in-use has governed the activities of this subgroup for 101 to 199 years.