(Ottawa) The federal government is very reluctant to list as “species at risk” fish that have a commercial value, but which would nevertheless require protection, concludes the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development of Canada.
Posted at 11:51 p.m.
The audit of Canada’s efforts to protect aquatic species at risk is among six new environmental reports tabled Tuesday in the House of Commons by Commissioner Jerry DeMarco.
Most of them focus on Canada’s efforts to protect biodiversity and prevent the disappearance of each of the approximately 80,000 species living on its territory.
“Our reports today demonstrate that biodiversity is seriously at risk in Canada,” concluded Mr. DeMarco.
The environment commissioner has found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been very slow to act when the national committee responsible for assessing whether a species is in need of protection declares that a particular aquatic creature or plant is indeed in Danger.
And when that assessment is for a fish that has significant commercial value, the department’s default decision seems to be not to list it as requiring special protection.
“Unfortunately, short-term economic concerns can outweigh the need for long-term measures to protect species, and there is a bias against protecting commercially valuable species,” DeMarco said.
In total, the Commissioner analyzed the case of nine fish, two mussels and one sea turtle that were recommended for protection by the federal government.
Four of the fish, the two mussels and the loggerhead sea turtle, which had negligible economic value, have been added to the list of species at risk by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The other five fish of significant commercial value were not listed. This was the case, in particular, for the Atlantic cod population of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Overfishing led in 1992 to a moratorium on commercial cod fishing in Newfoundland. Twice since then, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has assessed this cod as “endangered,” meaning it is in imminent danger of extinction.
Once this assessment has been completed, Fisheries and Oceans Canada must review it and decide whether to list the species for special protection under the Species at Risk Act. This listing would prevent this species from being killed, harmed, harassed or captured.
The first Newfoundland cod assessment took place in 2003, and it took Fisheries and Oceans three years to review the findings. But in 2006 the federal department decided not to add it to the Species at Risk Act list and allowed some of the inshore fishing and native harvesting to continue.
In 2010, the committee assessed Newfoundland cod for a second time as endangered. Today, 12 years later, at the time of the audit, Fisheries and Oceans had still not completed the review to determine what to do with this evaluation of the national committee.
Deadlines too long
Other fish species at risk due to their commercial value are steelhead trout (Thompson River population), Okanagan Chinook salmon population, yellowmouth rockfish and bluefin tuna. of the Atlantic.
Commissioner DeMarco also found that the department was taking far too long to conduct its own studies. He finds that Fisheries and Oceans had not completed its review of half of the 230 aquatic species the national committee had recommended for “at risk” designation since the Species at Risk Act came into force in 2004.
Additionally, he found that the department had large gaps in what it knew about species that needed protection, and not enough staff to enforce protections when they were put in place.
“Several elements are having undesirable effects on ecosystems and communities: a bias against the protection of commercially valuable species under the Species at Risk Act, significant delays in listing species to be protected, the lack of knowledge about species and the limited ability to enforce the law,” summarizes the commissioner in a press release.
The Commissioner’s fall audits also covered policies for managing low- and medium-risk radioactive waste, which accounts for 99.5% of all radioactive waste in Canada.
Mr. DeMarco concludes in this regard that Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Atomic Energy of Canada were doing a good job of managing this waste.