Title: How natural resource dependent social enterprises (SE) can facilitate community

sustainability in Canada: Learning from Northern Shrimp Fisheries

Presented by:

Jannatul Islam, Graduate Candidate, MAEP, Environmental Policy Institute

Memorial University

Guided and supervised by

Dr. Paul Foley, Asst. Prof. and Graduate Officer, MAEP, Environmental Policy Institute

Memorial University

July 9, 2015

Presentation overview

• Title Page

• Research Problem Overview

• Research Questions

• Research Objectives and Hypothesis

• Method of the Study

• Defining social Enterprise

• Conceptual Debates

• Overview of the Canadian Northern Shrimp Fisheries

• Case Studies

• What kind of Social Entrepreneurship they are?

• Why they are social enterprise?

• SE contributions to Sustainability

• Conclusions and Recommendations

• Selected Bibliography

Research problem overview

• Sustainable development is inherently natural resource dependent. All economic functions are within, and are dependent upon goods and services of natural ecosystems (Thampapillai, Dodo J., 2002).

• Indigenous people have important environmental knowledge which could contribute to conservation (Dove and Carpenter, 2008).

• When a local people’s quality of life is enhanced, their efforts and commitment to ensure the future well-being of the resource are also enhanced (Ostrom, E, et al, 1993).

• So from this perspective of environmental conservation (environmental), quality of life (social), and economic functions (economic); the three pillars of sustainability; all are seems to be facilitated if the natural resources are managed by community.

Key Problems:

• Developing institutions and mechanisms through which communities can access and use natural resources, because access to the natural resources sometimes is decided by ability, rather than rights.

Research questions:

• What is social enterprise (SE)? Is SE able to address the common challenges for communities whose development depends on natural resources?

• What are the roles of social enterprises in community sustainability, historically and currently?

• How do social enterprises use natural resource wealth and benefits for enhancing community sustainability?

• What are the policy implications of this study for enhancing the ability of social enterprises to facilitate community sustainability?

Research objectives and hypothesis

Research objectives:

o To conduct a literature review on social enterprise to clarify

the conceptual framework and how those concepts are able

to analyze the contributions of social enterprises to community development.

o To use case studies of different natural resource based community social enterprises in Canada’s northern shrimp fishery to analyze the impacts of social enterprises in communal sustainability.

o To use three pillar metric of sustainability developed by United Nations Environment Programme in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts to analyze the case studies.

o To suggest recommendations for the advancement of sustainable community development by promoting social entrepreneurship accessing natural resources in Canada.

Hypothesis:

• Natural resource dependent social enterprises can facilitate community sustainability if they are organized to invest in communities, though the ability and extent of contributions varies among cases and contexts.

Sources of data :

• Primary Sources: Primary data is collected from the websites,

publications and government sources on the selected case.

• Secondary Sources: (e.g. website of NLFC, IBRD, CSC, CFNL), researches of Memorial University and Harris Center, books, peer reviewed journals, government and regulatory website, government documents, fishery management plans, published reports, and news media etc.)

Data analysis:

• Selected cases will be justified as a social enterprise using Pearce, J. (2003) identified six characteristics of SE and Zahra, S.A. et al (2009) defined entrepreneurial features.

• Three pillar model of sustainability and 12 sustainable development goals proposed by the panel of Post 2015 Development Agenda used as an analytical tool to examine the case study.

Methods of data collection and analysis

Defining social enterprise • The term has a mixed and contested heritage due to its philanthropic roots in the

United States, and cooperative roots in the United Kingdom, European Union and Asia (Ridley, et al, 2011).

• The Social Enterprise Alliances (2014) mentioned three characteristics which distinguishes the social enterprise from other types of businesses calling it as missing middle as follows:

• Pearce, J., (2003) identified six characteristics of social enterprise what may cover lot of the above aspects and provide an operational definition. According to him social enterprise; i) Have a social welfare purpose or purposes; ii) Engaging in trade in the marketplace; iii) Not distributing profits to individuals; iv) Holding assets and wealth in trust for community benefit; v) Democratically involving members of its constituency in the governance of the organization; vi) Being independent organizations accountable to a defined constituency and to the wider community.

Conceptual debate

• One group defined social entrepreneurship as not-for-profit initiatives in search of alternative funding strategies or management schemes to create social value (e.g. Austin, J. et al., 2006; Boschee, J. 1998)

• Another group understands it as the socially responsible practice of commercial businesses engaged in cross-sector partnerships (Sagawa, S.& Segal, E. 2000; Waddock, S. A., 1998).

• In the other hand, Alvord, S. H. et al., (2004) views social entrepreneurship as a means to alleviate social problems and catalyze social transformation.

• Shragge, E. and Fontan, J.M. (Eds.). (2002) argued that a social economy implies a

basic reorientation of the whole economy and related institutions.

• Due to the diverse motive and scope of activities Zahra,S.A., et al. (2009) illustrates three types of social entrepreneurs: 1. Social Bricoleurs (discovered and acted upon at a very local level as the knowledge of this entrepreneurs possess does not exist outside their local context); 2. Social Constructionists (do not necessarily arise from a specific local knowledge rather form their alertness to opportunities which they leverage by developing products, goods and services); and 3. Social Engineers (the social reformers)

Overview of the Canadian Northern Shrimp Fisheries

Canadian Northern Shrimp Fisheries (Cont.)

• Source: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Duration

& Area

•12 month, year-round fishery in existence since 1970s.

•Takes place in channels and along the edge of the continental shelf, from SFA1 off Baffin Island, through to SFA7 near the 200 mile limit.

Revenue and

Licencenes

•$400 million in investments; $50 million goods and services purchased annually; about $10 million in annual cash contributions provided to special interest groups through purchase of “royalty quotas” (about 40% of our total access).

•17 license holders from Quebec, Atlantic Canada and Nunavut; includes 4.5 licenses held by aboriginal interests.

Production Facilities

•Produces 3 whole shell-on product categories: (1) raw frozen “large” size shrimp in 1 kg packages primarily for Japan, (2) cooked frozen “medium” size shrimp in 5 kg packages primarily for Russia and China, and (3) raw frozen “small” shrimp in 18-20 kg packages primarily for Newfoundland and Iceland.

Employ- ment

• About 800 direct person years of employment (about the same as the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador).

• Indirectly supports employment of additional 2,000 workers in rural Quebec, Atlantic Canada and Nunavut.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Case Studies Case-1: St. Anthony Basin Resources Inc. (SABRI)

• St. Anthony Basin Resources Inc. was founded in 1997 to manage the special 3000 tons allocation on behalf of the communities from Big Brook to Goose Cove.

• Established a cold storage of $7.5 million started in fall 2004 in a leasehold agreement with St. Anthony Cold Storage and lobbied for port call and only in 2006, 300 containers were shipped.

• SABRI since 1997 ;

-Invested $15.8 million in infrastructure in the region

-$224,000 in scholarships to students

-$560,000 to community development in the SABRI region

-Employed more than 225 individuals from local

-$3-4 million is injected into the local economy on an annual basis.

-Donated more than $291,000 to different groups in the SABRI region.

Case-2: Labrador Fishermen’s Union Shrimp Company (LFUSC)

• The LFUSC founded in 1978.

• They are contributing in education through two scholarships at Memorial University valued at $2,500 each since 1998.

• They introduced two Math & Science Scholarships in 2011 valued at $250 each to students of the Labrador Straits Academy.

• Currently they are operating five mix processing facilities in Labrador communities

• Served more than five hundred fish harvesters

• Employ approximately six hundred employees

• Annual sales of $90 million CAD

Case-3: Fogo Island Cooperative Society Ltd.

• Fogo Island is an isolated island with approximately 3,000 people in 11 communities and its economic base is the fishery.

• In 1967 the Fogo Island Co-operative was formed to protect the fishermen in response to the failing salt cod fish industry and challenging the resettlement program introduced by the Provincial Government.

• The Fogo Island Co-operative Society has about 1200 members including fishermen and co-op workers

• Turnover of 20-25 million Canadian dollars

• Employ 350-400 islanders in seasonal fish processing in three fish plants.

• They developed five local seafood products following their community development mandate and expansion of local market.

Case-4: Makivik Corporation

• Makivik means “To Rise Up”, they founded with the mandate to protect the interest of the communities provided by the “James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement” in 1975.

Partnering for community priority projects with Kativik Regional Government includes:

• - $35.5 million to pave 90 kilometers of local roads

• -$88 million over 7-10 years for marine infrastructures

• -$5 million contribution by Quebec to improve police services and construction of police stations

• - $8 million for park studies and $10 million for development and operates the park eve 5 years.

• -$376 million indexed over 25 years from Quebec to improve community social condition and economic development

• - $55-million for the Nunavik Inuit Trust

Except that:

- Their airline services that generated $100 million dollar to the Inuit trust

- Their direct employment income generated from the shrimp fishery alone for Nunavik is in excess of $1.5 million a year and $200,000 in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia

- Till now, they spent $100 million into social development and community program

Case-5: Qikiqtaaluk Corporation (QC)

• QC was created by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) in 1983 to manage the fishing quota by pursuing the mission of creating meaningful economic development.

• QC spends: - $16,000 yearly in School Breakfast - $32,500 over three years for Youth development -30,000 scholarships to the post-secondary students of the communities annually. -$50,000 a year to youth, cultural and community programs across the region

-$168,000 in Inuit salaries using their own quota and -$830,000 in additional salaries related to quota transfer.

• They contributed in 2013 : -$42,504 for training to Inuit crew -$255,000 in research and development to improve environmental footprint. -$406,000 for multiple studies by Fishing Foundations and Government agencies -$129,235 to offer better salaries and working conditions. -$3,879,175.29 for Environmental Remediation Project .

What kind of Social Entrepreneurship they are?

Name of Org

Type of Ent.

1. Social Bricoleurs 2. Social Constructionists 3. Social Engineers

Labrador Fishermen's Union

Shrimp Company (LFUSC)

Yes/No Yes Yes/No

St. Anthony Basin Resources

Inc.

Yes/No Yes Yes/No

Qikiqtaaluk Corporation Yes/No Yes Yes/No

Makivik Corporation Yes/No Yes Yes/No

Fogo Island Cooperative

Society Ltd.

Yes/No Yes Yes/No

Zahra,S.A., et al. (2009) illustrates three types of social entrepreneurs:

1. Social Bricoleurs: Mostly local knowledge based to address unrecognized specific local problem

with a very small scale.

2. Social Constructionists: They work in local to internationally and address the broader social needs,

help to maintain social harmony and equilibrium.

3. Social Engineers: They work in large scale with greater aspects of social equilibrium and focused

not only local but global scale.

Using the feature we may find the following table for the cases:

Why they are Social Enterprise?

Name of Org

Features

Qikiqtaaluk

Corporation Labrador

Fishermen's Union

Shrimp Company

St. Anthony Basin

Resources Inc.

Fogo Island

Cooperative

Society Ltd.

Makivik

Corporation

i) Have a social

welfare purpose or

purposes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

ii) Engaging in trade

in the marketplace

Sales products and

services to generate

profit

Sales products and

services to generate

profit

Sales products and

services to generate

profit

Sales products and

services to generate

profit

Sales products and

services to generate

profit

iii) Not distributing

profits to individuals

Social well being is

the main goal to

secure

Social well being is

the main goal to

secure

Social well being is

the main goal to

secure

Social well being is

the main goal to

secure

Social well being is

the main goal to

secure

iv) Holding assets

and wealth in trust

for community

benefit

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

v) Democratically

involving members

of its constituency in

the governance of

the organization

Yes *Yes

Representative

*Yes

Representative

*Yes

Representative

*Yes

Delegated

vi) Being

independent

organizations

accountable to a

defined constituency

and to the wider

community

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pearce, J., (2003) identified six defining characteristics of social enterprise to justify:

SE Contributions to Community Sustainability

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

Problems:

• Lack of supportive public body and policy: there is no department with a mandate to support social economy organizations and activities (Myers, J., 2009).

• Lack of abundance

• Market Problem

• Lack of Sustainability

Prospects:

• Community based natural resource management

• Protecting aboriginal and social values

• Creating environment of self dependence

• Supportive institutions of state mandate

Recommendations:

• Need supportive public body and policy

• More scholarship on Social Economy

• More funding and policy reconstruction for SE sustainability

• Special program for SE to make them revenue generated self dependant organization

Selected Bibliography • Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004).Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3): 260-282. • • Austin, J., Stenveson, H., & Wei-skillern, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurship and commercial entrpreneurship: Same, different or both? (Working paper series no.( 04-029).Harvard

Business School. • • Brian J. Burke and Boone Shear (2014). Introduction: engaged scholarship for non-capitalist political ecologies. Online, www.jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_21/BurkeandShear.pdf • • Dees, J.G., &Elias, J. (1998).The challenges of combining social and commercial enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1): 165-178. • • Dove, Michael R., and Carol C., eds. (2008). Environmental Anthropology: A Historical Reader. MA: Blackwell. • • Hall, M. et al. (2005) Cornerstones of Community: Highlights of the National Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations. (Catalogue no. 61-533-XPE, Rev. ed.). Ottawa, ON:

Statistics Canada. • • ILOCOOP (2014). Cooperatives and the Sustainable Development Goals: A contribution to the Post-2015 development debate, A policy brief. In www.unesco.org • • Kennedy, M., (2009). Transformative Planning for Community Development, IRLE, University of California, Working paper 2009-18 • • Light, Paul. (2005).Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association for

Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Washington, D.C., Nov.17-19 • • Locke F, Rowe M. P., and Powers P. (2007). Fostering a climate for growth and regional development through the social economy. Community Sectors Council Newfoundland and

Labrador. Available at: http://communitysector.nl.ca/f/fostering_climate_growth-social_economy.pdf

• Foley, P., Mather, C., and Neis, B. (2013) Fisheries allocation policies and regional development: Successes from the Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp fishery. A report prepared for The Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

• Foley, P., Mather, C., and Neis, B. (2015). Governing enclosure for coastal communities: Social embeddedness in a Canadian shrimp fishery. [Online]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14003030# doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.009

• • NLFC (2005) . Co-operatives and Social Enterprise in Newfoundland and Labrador. Available at: http://www.envision.ca/pdf/SocialEconomy/CooperativesSocialEnterprise.pdf • • Ostrom, E, Schroeder, L and Wynne, S 1993. Institutional incentives and sustainable development: infrastructure policies in perspective. Westview Press. Oxford, UK. 266 pp. • • Fitzgerald, F. MHA (2005). Challenges Facing Rural Communities: A Newfoundland and Labrador Perspective, Canadian Parliamentary Review. Available at:

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=1151&param=171 • • Sagawa, S., & Segal, E., 2000. Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnership. California Management Review, 42(2): 105-122. • Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business horizons, 48(3), 241-246. • • Carrell S., (2007), “Strike Rochdale from the record books. The Co-op began in Scotland” Available at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/aug/07/retail.uknews visited on

18/09/2014 • • Thakadu, O. T. (2005). "Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: Lessons from practice". Natural Resources Forum 29 (3): 199–212.

doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2005.00130.x. • • Walliman, N. S. R. (2006). Social research methods. N. Walliman (Ed). London: Sage • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 43. Websites: http://www.makivik.org/ http://qcorp.ca/ http://www.sabrinl.com/ http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Thanks

Comments, Suggestions or

Discussions???