GUARDIAN
  • About
  • Watch the Trailer
  • RENT
  • SCREENINGS & AWARDS
  • NEWS
  • PRESS
  • Contact

STAY INFORMED
​on the state of
science & fisheries
in Canada


Inadequate environmental impact assessments and crippled environmental legislation are still governing the fate of the Canadian landscape--but that could soon change.

Despite Justin Trudeau's inaugural promise to reinvest in ocean science, restore the scientific capability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and use scientific evidence in environmental decision-making, liquefied natural gas projects continue to be approved without the amendments to environmental legislation Trudeau promised three years ago.

That being said, not all is lost. Amendments to the Fisheries Act and a newly-proposed Impact Assessment Act are currently being discussed in the Senate. Proposed amendments were introduced in February 2018 and passed the House of Commons in July 2018.

Soon after his inauguration, Justin Trudeau initiated a review of environmental and regulatory processes in response to rollbacks of environmental legislation under Stephen Harper. Over three years later, these promises may be coming to fruition.

Canada's next election is in October 2019.

The World Is Losing Fish to Eat as Oceans Warm, Study Finds

2/28/2019

 
NEW YORK TIMES
By
 Kendra Pierre-Louis

Fish populations are declining as oceans warm, putting a key source of food and income at risk for millions of people around the world, according to new research published Thursday.

The study found that the amount of seafood that humans could sustainably harvest from a wide range of species shrank by 4.1 percent from 1930 to 2010, a casualty of human-caused climate change.

“That 4 percent decline sounds small, but it’s 1.4 million metric tons of fish from 1930 to 2010,” said Chris Free, the lead author of the study, which appears in the journal Science.

Scientists have warned that global warming will put pressure on the world’s food supplies in coming decades. But the new findings — which separate the effects of warming waters from other factors, like overfishing — suggest that climate change is already having a serious impact on seafood.

Fish make up 17 percent of the global population’s intake of protein, and as much as 70 percent for people living in some coastal and island countries, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

“Fish provide a vital source of protein for over half of the global population, and some 56 million people worldwide are supported in some way by marine fisheries,” Dr. Free said.

As the oceans have warmed, some regions have been particularly hard-hit. In the northeast Atlantic Ocean and the Sea of Japan, fish populations declined by as much as 35 percent over the period of the study.

“The ecosystems in East Asia have seen some of the largest decline in fisheries productivity,” Dr. Free said. “And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood.”

Now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Dr. Free began the research while a Ph.D. student at Rutgers University.

Marine life has been subjected to some of the most drastic effects of climate change. The oceans have absorbed 93 percent of the heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases that humans pump into the atmosphere.

A study published in January, also in Science, found that ocean temperatures were increasing far faster than previous estimates.

Amid these changing conditions, fish are shifting where they live, in search of their preferred temperatures. High ocean temperatures can kill off both the fish themselves and the sources of food they depend on.

“Fish are like Goldilocks: They don’t like their water too hot or too cold,” said Malin L. Pinsky, an associate professor in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University and a co-author of the new study.

In about a quarter of the regions studied, fish had expanded their range. Off the Atlantic coast of the United States, sustainable catches of black sea bass increased by 6 percent over the study period.

Another quarter of the regions saw no significant changes in fish populations, like the northwest Atlantic Ocean, where Atlantic herring are abundant.

But half the regions did not fare as well. The northeast Atlantic Ocean — home to the Atlantic cod, the mainstay of fish and chips — saw a 34 percent decline in sustainable catches.

Over all, more populations of fish declined than increased over the eight decades in the study.

The researchers focused on sustainable catches, using a measure developed by the United Nations that quantifies the amount of food that can be repeatedly harvested from a base population of fish. “Fisheries are like a bank account, and we’re trying to live off the interest,” Dr. Pinsky said.

Several previous studies have predicted that climate change would lead to fewer ocean fish in the future, but the new research looked at historical data to determine that the declines had already begun.
​
“This is going to be one of those groundbreaking studies that gets cited over and over again,” said Trevor Branch, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, who was not involved in the study. “Most of what I’ve seen before in terms of climate-change impacts have been speculative, in terms of, ‘We think this is what’s going to happen in the future.’ This one’s different.”

The researchers used a data set of 235 fish populations located in 38 ecological regions around the globe. The detailed data told them not only where the fish were but also how they reacted to environmental effects like changing water temperatures.

The team compared that data to records that showed how ocean temperatures had changed over time, broken down by the various regions. These regional analyses were important, because some parts of the ocean have warmed faster than others.

“We then connected those to which populations responded positively, negatively, and which didn’t respond at all,” Dr. Pinsky said.
​
The data revealed some other trends. Fish populations in the colder parts of their ranges tended to fare better than those located in warmer areas — for those fish, the extra heat was too much. This was especially troubling to the researchers, because the data they used was less detailed in the tropics. Fish losses in those regions may have been higher than in the regions the study focused on, Dr. Pinsky said.

Warm areas fared even worse when they were overfished. The researchers suggested that overfishing made fish even more vulnerable to temperature changes by hurting their ability to reproduce and damaging the ecosystem.

Guarding against overfishing and improving the overall management of fisheries can help, the researchers said. But ultimately, they said, the solution lies in slowing or halting climate change.
​
A separate study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, found that limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels — a goal of the Paris climate agreement — could result in billions of dollars in extra revenue for fisheries globally. Much of that would be in the developing world, where many people rely on fish for protein.

“We hope that this highlights the importance of accounting for the fact that climate change is driving shifts in productivity,” Dr. Free said of his research. “Fishery managers need to come up with new innovative ways of accounting for those shifts. That includes reducing catch limits in warm negative years, but it can also include increasing catch limits in cooler positive years. Having regulations that are adaptive to climate change is going to be really important for maximizing food potential.”
READ MORE: ​https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/climate/fish-climate-change.html

Premiers push Ottawa for changes to environmental assessment bill

2/28/2019

 
By Holly Lake
iPolitics


Why would the federal government spend $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and continue to push legislation that will stand in the way of getting a good many energy projects off the ground?

That was the question Alberta Premier Rachel Notley put to senators Thursday morning at the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources as part of their study of Bill C-69.

“It just leaves us shaking our heads,” she said.

The proposed legislation would overhaul the federal environmental assessment process by broadening investigations into proposed projects to include assessment of environmental and economic impacts, as well as consulting Indigenous groups more.

It would also replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency with a new watchdog called the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, and would give the federal environment minister the power to veto a proposed project before an assessment even starts.

The bill as written does not work for Alberta, “and, therefore, it does not work for Canada,” Notley said.

That’s not to say the Environmental Assessment Act introduced by the previous Conservative government was any better. She said it was “broken, misguided and damaging to our economy,” and agreed the process for approving infrastructure projects needs to change.

“The old way of doing things is not an option. Senators, we have to get this right. We can’t just swap one broken system for another broken system. We can’t build trust with more investor uncertainty,” she said.
“We can’t replace a “no pipeline” process under the former Conservative government with a “no pipeline” process under a Liberal one. But either by design, by willful ignorance, or maybe just by accident, that’s just what Bill C-69 does.”

Notley said there isn’t a school, hospital, road or bike lane in Canada that doesn’t owe something to a strong energy industry, but stressed Alberta can’t keep contributing what it does to the Canadian economy, build new renewable energy or lead on climate change if Ottawa makes it virtually impossible to build the energy infrastructure the province needs.

Last fall’s economic crisis was because the province ran out of pipeline capacity, she noted, which saw the value of its oil drop by about 20 per cent of what it could have fetched on the world market. In response, her government curtailed production by 10 per cent.

“In the Maritimes they were importing Saudi oil. Here in Ontario you were importing American oil. And in the West, we were curtailing production. This, my friends, does not a country make,” the premier said.
Notley came with a list of amendments she asked senators to consider as a package. Among them are harder limits on the time it can take to do a review, and ensuring assessments consider the socio-economic benefits of a project.

She also wants to see Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan formally recognized so that projects approved under it would meet federal standards and be exempt from further assessment, unless there were significant impacts in other areas of federal jurisdiction.

Notley also requested that the act be amended to exclude downstream greenhouse gas emissions.
Bringing a perspective from the other end of the country, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Dwight Ball said while his government is concerned the proposed legislation will increase regulatory burden, costs and timelines, without enhancing environmental outcomes, the status quo doesn’t sit well with them either.

“Improvements to Bill C-69 must create a responsible but also internationally competitive regulatory environment that can support our Government’s efforts to meet ambitious targets for economic growth in our resource sector.”

He noted that sector contributed 25 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador’s GDP in 2016 and the equivalent of nearly 18,000 person years of employment last year, and said given the economic and demographic challenges the province is facing, the need to be able to sustainably develop its natural resources “is perhaps greater now than ever before.”

His Liberal government has announced plans to double offshore oil production by 2030, which set a target of 100 new exploration wells.

The province is “on the verge of a new era in frontier oil exploration and development,” and key to unlocking that potential offshore rests with exploration wells. Ball said exploration shouldn’t be subject to impact assessment, as the process of going before a review panel could take 870 days — while the work itself might only last a couple of months.

Under the current Environmental Assessment Act, the process averages 2.5 years. The proposed Impact Assessment Act (IAA) creates a process that is three years, or longer, for every project, said Siobhan Coady, the province’s minister of natural resources.

While Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore has caught the eye of the global industry, investors are concerned about putting money on the table because Canada’s environmental regulatory system already lags far behind countries like the UK and Norway, Ball said, noting both move exploratory well drilling through assessment in a matter of months.

“We keep saying investment is slowing down and it’s slowing down simply because of the uncertainty that’s created around the discussions we’re having around this new legislation,” he told iPolitics.

“It’s not about moving away from environmental concerns. We believe we have to do that responsibly. But we also know this creates jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it contributes quite heavily to all of Canada.”

Balancing environmental protection with resource development is an “indispensable economic imperative,” and should be the focus of amendments to Bill C-69, he told senators.

As written, the bill would allow the federal environment minister to veto a proposed project. That’s concerning, Coady said, as it doesn’t respect the principles of joint management and shared jurisdiction for the offshore that are entrenched in the Atlantic Accord.

“We believe the federal minister should be required to consult the provincial minister on matters that have potentially significant impacts on our offshore.”

Like Alberta, he called for regional environmental assessments to be recognized to avoid delays and duplication. Further to that, the province wants the role of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) — the regulator created as part of the Accord — clarified and enshrined in the bill. Before the Conservatives introduced their assessment legislation in 2012, the board was responsible for performing all environmental assessments for the offshore.

“They have expertise in all areas of offshore oil and gas operations and are responsible for all other operational approvals in the offshore area. To not fully use their expertise would undermine the purpose of the IAA, which is to perform more effective and efficient impact assessments,” Coady said.

Later, Ball told iPolitics: “In our province we’ve been doing this for nearly 30 years now. We’ve been doing it successfully. When it comes down to answering the question of who the responsible authority would be, it’s very clear to us that within our legislation it should be the C-NLOPB, so we want that stated right in the act itself.”

However, there are plenty of people in the province who have long felt the board already has too much power and needs better oversight itself. A spill off Newfoundland’s coast in the fall — the largest spill ever off Canada’s East Coast — renewed those calls for change to what’s seen as self-regulation by industry.

Critics say there is a built-in conflict of interest in the C-NLOPB’s mandate, given its responsibility for development, as well as safety and environment.

Senators also heard from Saskatchewan Minister of Energy and Resources Bronwyn Eyre, who told the committee this bill would be “economically devastating,” and only lead to “non-streamlining and non-efficiency.”
​

“If ever ‘sober second thought’ were necessary, it is with this bill,” she said.

READ MORE: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/28/premiers-push-ottawa-for-changes-to-environmental-assessment-bill/

What If A River Runs Through It? Water Flow As Habitat In The New Fisheries Act

2/12/2019

 
Article by Michael Finley
Gowling WLG

A new definition in Bill C-68, the new Fisheries Act (the "Act"), has the potential to significantly broaden the Act's concept of "fish habitat".  As mentioned in a previous article, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommended adding the concept of water flow to the definition of "fish habitat" by inserting the following provision prior to the third reading of the Bill:

Deeming — habitat

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the quantity, timing and quality of the water flow that are necessary to sustain the freshwater or estuarine ecosystems of a fish habitat are deemed to be a fish habitat.

Bill C-68 is currently before the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and includes this provision.  This article addresses why the above provision was inserted into Bill C-68 and what the implications of this change might be if it remains in Bill C-68 following Senate committee review.

First, the "why".  The above provision, which, for the purposes of this article, will be called the "deeming provision", has its genesis in a broader concept known as "environmental flow".  The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat has adopted the below definition, endorsed at the 2007 International River Symposium held in Brisbane Australia:

Environmental flow describes the quantity, quality and timing of water flows required to sustain freshwater ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems.1

A number of witnesses at the committee stage of Bill C-68, advocated for the inclusion of environmental flows somewhere in the Act, including West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, Oceana Canada, and the Tsleil-Waututh.

Notably, though the deeming provision might suggest otherwise, environmental flow does not necessarily require or imply a pristine aquatic ecosystem, devoid of human use.  Rather, the concept of environmental flow presumes a variety of uses.  As the International Union for the Conservation of Nature notes:

Intuitively, it might seem that all of the natural flow, in its natural pattern of high and low flows, would be needed to maintain a near-pristine ecosystem. Many ecologists believe, however, that some small portion of flow could be removed without measurable degradation of the ecosystem. How much could be removed in this way is more difficult to assess, with estimates ranging between about 65% and 95% of natural flow having to remain, with the natural patter of flow also retained. Once flow manipulations move past this, then river ecologists can advise on patterns and volumes of flows that will result in a range of different river conditions. This information can then be used to choose a condition that allows an acceptable balance between a desired ecosystem condition and other social and economic needs for water. The flows allocated to achieve the chosen condition are the environmental flow.2

Concern about maintaining environmental flows reflects the reality that many of Canada's aquatic systems are under increasing pressure from human activity, and that water is not an unlimited resource.  From an environmental-protection perspective, the benefit of an environmental flow approach is that it is inherently holistic.  Considering environmental flows involves thinking about the total health of a water body and attempts to account for the total effect of individual water uses on the system as a whole. 

However, while it is easy to understand that a certain level of water flow (or indeed, a seasonal variability of flow) is environmentally necessary, it is not as easy to "operationalize" the concept.  What, for example, is a dam operator or industrial user of water to do in order to maintain the environmental flow of the waterway they benefit from? Many water users alter flows daily, simply by nature of their operations.

Equally there are issues in determining the appropriate environmental flow.  As it stands, there is no single, federally-mandated methodology to determine what the appropriate or required environmental flow is in a given waterway.  Various methodologies to assess the appropriate flow exist.  The World Wildlife Fund suggests that there are over 200 methodologies to determine environmental flow globally, reflecting in part the variety of water resources being assessed.3 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, has assessed a number of these methodologies.4 

Bill C-68, as it stands, does not mandate how the appropriate or required environmental flow is to be established for the purpose of the deeming provision.  For dams and fishways, this might be done by regulation, given the Ministerial power at s. 34.3(7) to "make regulations respecting the flow of water that is to be maintained to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat."  However, it is not yet clear what guidance will apply to restrict or limit other types of water use for the purposes of their operations.  Consumptive use, for example, has a different effect on environmental flow than obstruction or temporary diversion of water.5 

Nevertheless, the variability of environmental flows means that regulations will likely be unable to clearly mandate what must be done by individual users.  Instead, it is likely that a case-by case approach will be required. This is because optimal environmental flows vary depending on the water in question.  For example, perennial rivers (those that flow all year) do not have the same characteristics as seasonal rivers that flow only at certain times of year (such as during the spring freshet).6 Given that the environmental flow for a given river system is individual to that system, and given that different uses may affect flow differently, it is unlikely that appropriate environmental flows will be easily established by general regulation.  Instead, it will be necessary to establish the flow for the specific system in question. 

Without guidance, it is not yet clear what types of alteration of flow are permissible and what might require authorization by the Ministry as an alteration of fish habitat for the purposes of the new Act.  Further, it is likely that what one user does on a waterway with respect to flow will impact another potential user's ability to use water.  This means existing uses of a waterway and their impact on environmental flow will have to be assessed when determining whether a future use of that waterway is appropriate or approvable.  Guidance is required from the DFO on these points, either through regulation or policy-making. 

Guidance is also required to understand how users' obligations to maintain environmental flows relate to their obligations under provincial water regimes, such as the Ontario Water Resources Act.  Permits to take water under the Ontario Water Resources Act, for example, often take into consideration appropriate water flow and the health of upstream and downstream environments.  Water uses will require coordination between provincial and federal authorities to ensure that the regulatory burden is not duplicated between regimes.

While including flows in the definition of fish habitat represents a significant change to the Act, considering flow as part of habitat is not new. The previous Act's prohibition of killing fish (former s. 32) and prohibition of harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat (former s. 35) already indirectly contemplated the concept of maintaining ecological flow. 

Case law bears this out.  For example, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. was successfully prosecuted under both of these sections of the former Act when, acting on what it perceived to be DFO authorization, Rio Tinto initiated an emergency ramp-down of water flow past its dam in the Kemano river.  It did so in order to allow B.C. Hydro to conduct urgent infrastructure repairs.7 The court found that this rapid decrease in river flow had deleterious impact on salmon fry (juvenile salmon) in the river. 
​
Given that Bill C-68, in its current form, returns the s.35 prohibition on harmful alteration damage or destruction of fish habitat to the Act. If Bill C-68 is approved in its current form, then interference with flow that impairs habitat will, once again, constitute an offence.  It remains to be determined whether any guidance will be provided through regulation or DFO policy.  If Bill C-68 in its current form comes into effect, then in the event of a prosecution, water users who may be charged under the new s. 35. Those who are charged and who seek to make out a due diligence defence will be well-served to understand the hydrological conditions of the watercourse within which they operate. Water users in general would benefit from clear DFO guidance on what must be done to maintain environmental flows. 
READ MORE: http://bit.ly/newfisheriesact

    THIS BLOG ...

    is an archive of news on science and environmental legislation in Canada with a particular focus on marine and freshwater ecosystems and LNG.

    Archives

    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2018

    Categories

    All
    Bill C-48
    Bill C 68
    Bill C 69
    British Columbia
    Canada
    Climate Change
    Convention On Biological Diversity
    DFO
    Environmental Legislation
    Fisheries Act
    Fish Populations
    House Of Commons
    Impact Assessment Act
    IUCN
    LNG
    Marine Protected Areas
    Marine Refuges
    National Energy Board
    Salmon

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • About
  • Watch the Trailer
  • RENT
  • SCREENINGS & AWARDS
  • NEWS
  • PRESS
  • Contact