Authorized net losses of fish habitat demonstrate need for improved habitat protection in Canada

Abstract

Fish habitat is essential to the stability and productivity of fisheries. In Canada, the primary legal tool for protecting fish habitat is the federal Fisheries Act. In 2012, this law was changed to narrow the scope of habitat protection. The government’s position was that the previous regime went beyond what was necessary to protect fish and fish habitat. Here, we tested that assertion by examining Fisheries Act authorizations to harmfully alter, disrupt, or destroy fish habitat issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada during a 6-month period in 2012, obtained using access to information processes. We found the majority of projects (67%) were authorized to impact more habitat than proponents were required to compensate for, likely resulting in a net loss of fish habitat. Our analysis show an aggregate net loss — defined as authorized impact minus required compensation — of 2 919 143 m2 authorized across 78 projects. Drawing from these results, we present four recommendations for an improved habitat protection regime under a renewed Fisheries Act, emphasizing the need to establish a public registry for authorizations and monitoring data.

Estuary habitat associations for juvenile Pacific salmon and pelagic fish: Implications for coastal planning processes

“…Thus, replacement of lost or damaged eelgrass habitat, mitigation policies proposed by industrial development environmental assessment in the Skeena River estuary (Pacific Northwest LNG, ), may not be able to achieve no net loss of nursery function for salmon. In general, habitat mitigation policy used in Canada rarely achieves adequate habitat compensation (Favaro & Olszynski, ; Harper & Quigley, ). Although habitat compensation projects can be successful (White, ), overall they are resulting in restored habitats with reduced areal extent (Kistritz, ), less utilization by target species (Levings & Nishimura, ), and have lower habitat productivity (Quigley & Harper, ).…”

“…1985 c. F‑14, s. 35) (Williams, ). Even if projects do achieve no net loss (which is rare—see Favaro & Olszynski, ; Harper & Quigley, ; Kistritz, ; Levings & Nishimura, ; Quigley & Harper, ), the efficacy of the compensation will be influenced by the degree to which habitat classifications actually do characterize the true importance to the species. Moreover, there is scientific uncertainty as to whether this approach for classification of habitat reflects that actual usage of a given area by a species of management concern.…”

Towards linking environmental law and science

“…For example, in the 1980s Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) developed and released its 1986 Policy on the Management of Fish Habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1986) (design) to inform and guide its decision-making pursuant to section 35 of the federal Fisheries Act (decision-making) and on-the-ground practices to avoid, mitigate, and compensate for impacts on fish habitat (implementation). The policy was subsequently monitored for efficacy (evaluation) (Harper and Quigley 2005;Quigley and Harper 2006;Favaro and Olszynski 2017) but not formally by the DFO.…”

“…An empirical assessment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's habitat management regime discovered that there was a net loss of habitat in contravention of the department's own policy (Favaro and Olszynski 2017).…”

“…For example, two of the coauthors of this paper with law and science backgrounds collaborated on an empirical assessment of DFO's fish habitat management regime (Favaro and Olszynski 2017). They found that the regime was likely resulting in a net loss of habitat-a contravention of the department's "no net loss" policy, a central feature of the fish habitat legal regime in Canada.…”