4,149
edits
Ressources of Newfoundland: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
As they say by Fogo Island Inn, the center of all the new age tourism flourishing, Fogo (“fire” in Portugese) is “an island off an island” called Newfoundland (Terre-neuve in French). Newfoundland is very wide, with 115 thousands square kilometres, and makes a whole province of Canada with the Labrador land. The whole “Newfoundland and Labrador” represents 405 thousands square kilometres of wild land (1,3 inhabitant/km2) filled with ressources: | As they say by Fogo Island Inn, the center of all the new age tourism flourishing, Fogo (“fire” in Portugese) is “an island off an island” called Newfoundland (Terre-neuve in French). Newfoundland is very wide, with 115 thousands square kilometres, and makes a whole province of Canada with the Labrador land. The whole “Newfoundland and Labrador” represents 405 thousands square kilometres of wild land (1,3 inhabitant/km2) filled with ressources: | ||
* | *<b>Metals</b> from mines in Labrador (half of the iron in Canada, copper, zinc, sliver and gold); | ||
* | *<b>Petroleum</b> from offshore platforms (making ±15% of GPD in 2006 with ±4,5% of Canada’s petrolum); | ||
* | *<b>Limber</b> to make newsprint paper from huge forests of black spruce (Picea Mariana typical from the taiga); | ||
* | *<b>Seafood</b> despite the collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod (Gadus morhua) fishery in the 90’s (wild fishes and crabs (Chionoecetes opilio), growing aquaculture (salmon and shellfishes)); | ||
* | *<b>Dairy</b> from industrial Holstein cattle like most North American systems, pretending to be less carbon intensive because of high productivity (still small compared to other activities with less than $150 million revenue).<ref>Another corporative website without much proper data and poor references. | https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/en/who-we-are/our-commitments/sustainability/emissions</ref> | ||
===Representatives’ hypocrisis=== | ===Representatives’ hypocrisis=== | ||
Fogo island seems to be a laboratory for “good practices” for the century to come when it comes to socio-economical activities. | Fogo island seems to be a laboratory for “good practices” for the century to come when it comes to socio-economical activities.<ref>2. From the “Economic Nutrition” certification used by Fogo Island Workshops for their timber furniture production; to the numerous environmentally conscious activities and “wellness retreats” proposed by Fogo Island Inn that include foraging and hiking, sustainable cooking and fishing with locals, etc. </ref> Still, it belongs to a region which main source of revenues are non-durable extractive industries. It is a drop of goodwill in an ocean of interests that consist in nourishing the notorious oil hunger of their neighbour (the U.S.A buy more than 95% of Canada’s petroleum). Inhabitants of Fogo island are inevitably “trapped” in these cynical contradictions — as many citizens of our present world. | ||
Ironically, inhabitants of Newfoundland now grave for the disappearance of icebergs brought from the North by the Labrador current? | Ironically, inhabitants of Newfoundland now grave for the disappearance of icebergs brought from the North by the Labrador current?<ref>As we can hear from the French speaking people of Twillingate island in 2021. | https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/les-chemins-du-monde/les-chemins-du-monde-du-samedi-14-aout-2021 </ref> With the loss of those magnificent decaying icebergs appearing every Springs, climate change already affects their main activity, tourism; while their government continues to let the oil companies prospect, with Billions dollars of interests for the province’s treasure. | ||
On the other hand, the Canadian government shows goodwill to decarbonise massively its electricity production (14% of total carbon emissions) with Muskrat Falls hydropower. But the scale of this is no match to the expansion of oil/gas production (already 34% of total emissions) that should double until 2030. | On the other hand, the Canadian government shows goodwill to decarbonise massively its electricity production (14% of total carbon emissions) with Muskrat Falls hydropower. But the scale of this is no match to the expansion of oil/gas production (already 34% of total emissions) that should double until 2030.<ref>Zach Goudie, What's the plan? Explaining the N.L. climate change strategy, CBC news, 2019. | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/climate-change-explainer-1.5094377</ref> | ||
==History of ressources== | ==History of ressources== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
The exploitation of Newfoundland starts in the 16th century according to Basque fishermen records, after this ressource-full region was discovered by Western expansionist civilisations who could not get enough from their own lands (Basque, Spain, France, England, Ireland, Portugal). | The exploitation of Newfoundland starts in the 16th century according to Basque fishermen records, after this ressource-full region was discovered by Western expansionist civilisations who could not get enough from their own lands (Basque, Spain, France, England, Ireland, Portugal). | ||
<br>Two main activities first emerged: | <br><u>Two main activities first emerged:</u> | ||
#Cod fishing in the close seas, which marine life benefits from the combination of Labrador and Gulf Stream currents; | #Cod fishing in the close seas, which marine life benefits from the combination of Labrador and Gulf Stream currents; | ||
#Fur production on land, from a diversity of wild mammals of the forests. | #Fur production on land, from a diversity of wild mammals of the forests. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Western countries started to share unpeacefully these ressources until France and England controlled most of it. Regular conflicts between the two countries stoped with the Utrecht treaty in 1713 and the following agreement: fishing rights are allocated to the French (mainly fishermen from Brittany) but lands belong to the English settlers. This is the “French shore”, a convenient agreement that will last until the start of the 20th century: French were not allowed to settle, and their cod salting plants were limited to a limited part of the coast; while England fulfilled its imperialists intents. In the process, last remaining indigenous people from Newfoundland, the Beothuks, were whipped out from their land until extinction in the early 19th century. | Western countries started to share unpeacefully these ressources until France and England controlled most of it. Regular conflicts between the two countries stoped with the Utrecht treaty in 1713 and the following agreement: fishing rights are allocated to the French (mainly fishermen from Brittany) but lands belong to the English settlers. This is the “French shore”, a convenient agreement that will last until the start of the 20th century: French were not allowed to settle, and their cod salting plants were limited to a limited part of the coast; while England fulfilled its imperialists intents. In the process, last remaining indigenous people from Newfoundland, the Beothuks, were whipped out from their land until extinction in the early 19th century. | ||
French business was the most prosperous of the Island, as salted cod soon became a convenient staple food for European populations. Among them, the Portuguese people relied so much on it that it became the most iconic ingredient of their cuisine until the present days. | French business was the most prosperous of the Island, as salted cod soon became a convenient staple food for European populations. Among them, the Portuguese people relied so much on it that it became the most iconic ingredient of their cuisine until the present days.<ref>André Magord, «L’établissement d’une population francophone à Terre-Neuve : entre traités officiels et dynamiques de peuplement clandestin», Le Golf du Saint-Laurent et le Centre-Ouest français, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010. | [https://books.openedition.org/pur/101714]</ref> | ||
===Recent collapse=== | ===Recent collapse=== | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
But then, what are the real improvements since the controversies of the Norwegian salmon industry ? Off course their blue mussels can be sustainable and even organic, but what about their salmons which main webpage is inaccessible? When inquiring on local actors in aquaculture, it’s always back to pledges for sustainability without enough real described actions stated, aside from philanthropy.(10) | But then, what are the real improvements since the controversies of the Norwegian salmon industry ? Off course their blue mussels can be sustainable and even organic, but what about their salmons which main webpage is inaccessible? When inquiring on local actors in aquaculture, it’s always back to pledges for sustainability without enough real described actions stated, aside from philanthropy.(10) | ||
The 2018 report made by the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance is not an independent view on the subject, but its observation are clear and sourced: | The 2018 report made by the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance is not an independent view on the subject, but its observation are clear and sourced: :Good practices are described and promoted by the Alliance, but none of them seem to be mandatory. | ||
:When it comes to energy inputs, it is stated per unit of production, which does not consider the rebound-effect typical from those kind of improvements. But the oddest part is that it talks about decline while showing a rising curve. | |||
:The advantage of Canada’s coastline are their strong currents, where fish farms are placed to avoid an excess of organic deposition below, on the oceans’ bed. | |||
:Finally, the report often recognise the efficiency and beneficial ecosystemic services from shellfish farming(11); which brings us to “Regenerative Ocean Farming”. | |||
===Regenerative Ocean Farming=== | ===Regenerative Ocean Farming=== | ||