TO: saracomments@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
From: Dr K.N.I. Bell <kbell@mun.ca>
Subject: *Species at Risk Act Public Consultations October and November 2004
Date: November 17, 2004 1:12:13 PM CNT
CC: “Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada” <pm@pm.gc.ca>
“
Hon. Stephen Harper”<Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>
“
MP NDP Jack Layton”<Layton.J@parl.gc.ca>
______________________________
Biodiversity conservation is not a luxury to be subordinated to short-term convenience (like burning the house to keep warm), it is an essential part of sound economic planning for the future. A little better attention to information that did exist from credible sources in the late 1980s and even early 1990s might have preserved the Atlantic Cod fishery, one of the world's great, classic, fisheries. We still may have opportunities to assist a recovery, but this does require Listing and the research and management priorities it will bring. Listing can also be an important tool of both moral persuasion and public opinion internationally, especially with regard to the problems with fishing by other nations in the waters nearest us.
I strongly urge that all Listing recommendations of COSEWIC be accepted, including
these populations (Cod “Laurentian North” and “Newfoundland
and Labrador”), and that they be added to the SARA list.
The
first reason is that it makes no sense to [a] refuse the advice that comes from
the committee that is formally stated
(by SARA) to be the source of the
best scientific information available, or to [b] refuse the advice without
identifying, specifically, a fault within that advice and within the terms
of reference of
that advice.
The intention regrettably evident in these hearings was to generate a politically
floatable excuse to “not add” or at least to delay (“refer
back”).
The impartiality of Cabinet has been spoiled by stirring of fears by at least
one Cabinet Minister (Mr. Efford, CBC, Oct. 14 2004) and by his urging for objections
to a Listing of Cod. That was an appeal to fears created by Government and its
own legislation, and shows that Government desires a certain outcome. This is
most unfortunate because it calls into question Government’s sincerity
in its commitment to biodiversity conservation.
These hearings confuse emotion and logic. Logic says that when it hurts and the
x-ray shows cracks you should accept the doctor’s opinion that your leg
is fractured; it’s pointless for emotion to say ‘but I don’t
have time for a broken leg’. Given the undeniable fact that some Cod
populations are endangered (though DFO has, vigorously, tried to deny it
in the past), these
hearings inanely suggest the option of refusing to accept that fact.
These hearings also confuse science and consensus.
Science is the logical interpretation of facts, not a matter of consensus;
objections to consequences have no effect
on the existence of a fact. The value of Pi will remain unmoved by a million
objections to the inconvenience of calculation with numbers that are inaccurate
to a million decimal places.
Also remember that DFO already had ample input into the COSEWIC process and the
generation of the 2003 Report. Despite its glaring neglect of saying so and its
attempt to dissociate itself with COSEWIC designations (poster “Species
at Risk (E&F).pdf”), Government including DFO had voting rights
and administrative input within COSEWIC, it had the privileges of a Jurisdiction
within COSEWIC, and DFO had at least 15 consultations with the author. Effectively,
having failed with its many kicks at the can within the SARA/COSEWIC process,
Government went for a replay on a slanted playing field.
The remedy for an inconveniences following a Listing are [a] accommodation in the implementation of measures following the Listing, and or [b] compensation. To deny the fact is no remedy. To deny the fact is to hobble on your fractured leg until it breaks altogether.
The present “hearings” are illegitimate because they are not provided
for by SARA, and they undermine SARA. They are also pointless because they fail
to provide substantive information – because that information does
not yet exist -- to allow feedback to have meaning. (In contrast, the consultations
stipulated by SARA would speak to the same issues but would be held when
substantive
information exists to allow feedback to be meaningful.)
The current hearings have, most unfortunately, adopted an emotive approach. A
Cabinet Minister’s stirring of fears and urging for objections to a
Listing of Cod showed that Government already has its mind made up.
In the current hearings, participants have been asked (poster “Species
at Risk (E&F).pdf”) to choose only between accept/refuse/refer. Other
options are not acknowledged (e.g.: accept and add, but examine fine-scale structures
so that fisheries can tolerate specified bycatch levels in areas where cod prove
to be healthy local populations, etc.). Those options are possible under a Listing:
hidden away in the workbook is a reference to SARA’s Sec. 73, but its
importance is not developed, which it should have been, because on the web
is a reference
to Sec. 73 providing the latitude to allow reasonable activities, including
fishing, to continue if they are shown to have tolerably small effect on
recovery/conservation.
“Accept” is the only logical decision regarding any fact, and that
is the case here because we are talking about advice from the source that Government
(in SARA) has already identified as the best source of that advice. “Refuse” is
a silly option, tantamount to plugging one’s ears.
COSEWIC is tasked only with assessing status, not arbitrating fears of any kind
of cost of Listing. Therefore the option “refer back to COSEWIC” on
the basis of consequences of Listing is disingenuous. It is like asking your
accountant to make a conclusion that will justify your preferred activity; it
is not as if you have found a calculation error, you just didn’t like it.
Emotive responses to an uninformed process cannot be grounds for “refer[ring]
back to COSEWIC for further review”. Emotive and socio-economic issues
are not within the purview of COSEWIC as stated under SARA. The only basis
for referring back to COSEWIC is that there is an identified problem with
the science.
That has to be shown, explicitly, before referring back to COSEWIC. If that
is not done before referring back, the referral is no more than an irresponsible
delay tactic.
The source of much of this trouble and confusion is the new but ill-conceived
SARA approach of bundling together the ‘recognition of fact’ and
the ‘commitment to do something about it’; we need to SEPARATE
those things. A sequential approach is more efficient in decision-making.
THUS, SARA
should be reformed to automatically accept the FACTS, and from there, the
process should lead to obligations to generate plans, and those plans would
then be
considered (openly and transparently, which means reform of COSEWIC also)
and wide input
(substantive, not emotive) should be sought and considered.
Government therefore has only two honourable
choices here: [i] accept, on that basis that the advice is, as formally mandated
by SARA, the best scientific advice
available on the question; or [ii] refuse on the basis that COSEWIC fails
to meet the SARA standard, and the consequence of this will be that COSEWIC will
have to be investigated and likely replaced.
The other choices offered in the poster, “refuse the assessment” and “refer
the assessment back to COSEWIC for further review”, are, bluntly, indecent.
Sincerely,
KNIB
Dr. K.N.I. Bell, M.Sc.(Dalhousie), Ph.D. (Memorial)