It's been 20 years since Canada's East Coast cod fishery collapsed, and we still have no recovery target or timeline for rebuilding populations. That's just one finding in a damning report from a panel of eminent Royal Society of Canada marine scientists.
Sustaining Canada's Marine Biodiversity notes that Canada has "failed to meet most of our national and international commitments to protect marine biodiversity" and "lags behind other modernized nations in almost every aspect of fisheries management."
For a country surrounded on three sides by oceans and with the longest coastline in the world, that's shameful. Beyond the jobs, recreational opportunities, food, medicines, and habitat that our oceans provide, they also give us life. Half the world's oxygen is produced in the oceans by phytoplankton, which are threatened by rising ocean temperatures and acidification because of global warming.
Successive federal governments have failed to recognize our oceans as much more than reservoirs of resources to exploit for short-term gain. You'd think the decline of the Northern cod fishery, largely caused by mismanagement, would have taught us something. Now, with some West Coast salmon fisheries on the verge of collapse, and little real effort to protect our oceans, it appears we can expect more of the same -- unless we start demanding more from our government.
The Royal Society panel focused on climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture "because of their potential for impact on Canada's marine biodiversity." The problem, it found, was not an absence of knowledge, science, or policy, but rather "a consistent, disheartening lack of action on well-established knowledge and best-practice and policies, some of which have been around for years."
Canada's Fisheries Act, which dates back to 1868, doesn't mention conservation. Our 1997 Oceans Act has yet to be effectively implemented. And the Species at Risk Act has been largely inadequate. Although Canada has made an international commitment to establish a protected network covering 10 per cent of our ocean territory, it has protected less than one per cent.
In fact, the federal government recently rejected millions of dollars in funding for a collaborative effort to establish a marine spatial plan and network of protected areas in Canada's Pacific North Coast waters. First Nations, industry, the provincial and federal governments, and environmental organizations, including the David Suzuki Foundation, have been making progress on the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) for years, but the federal government stymied the process by failing to invest adequate funding and by rejecting support from a philanthropic organization.
The reason? The government was worried that marine protected areas and marine use plans based on ecosystem science might restrict oil tanker traffic. The loss of more than $8 million dollars from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation was a blow to the process, and the government has not stepped in to make up for the shortfall.
Rather than protect the Pacific's valuable resources, opportunities, and habitat on which 40 per cent of the world's marine mammal species and countless other plants and animals depend, it appears the government would rather risk it all by pushing the Northern Gateway pipeline project to ship crude bitumen from the tar sands through precarious Pacific Coast waterways to China and California.
The report also notes that climate change could drive some salmon species to extinction, that increasing acid levels could harm "everything from corals to mussels to lobsters," and that fish farming can harm wild stocks through spread of parasites and diseases and interbreeding.
Besides an apparent lack of interest on the part of government regarding the health of Canada's oceans, the report identifies a major problem that puts us behind most developed nations: a "major conflict of interest at Fisheries and Oceans Canada between its mandate to promote industrial and economic activity and its responsibility for conserving marine life and ocean health."
The panel offered a number of sensible recommendations, which include addressing the conflict of interest and living up to our national and international commitments to marine biodiversity.
Our government is gaining a reputation for ignoring or discounting the advice of scientists. Let's tell our leaders that our future depends on the future of the oceans and that this advice must be heeded. The science is clear: It's time to do more.
Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
Peter Hanlon: Hydrokinetic Power: The Next Wave in Renewable Energy?
Rocky Kistner: Arctic Oil Drilling Threatens Polar Bear Birthing Grounds
Peter Bosshard: Rivers, Fish and the Tree of Life
John Friedman: The Politics of Sustainability
Oceanic Preservation Society- Home
Marine Conservation Organizations - MarineBio.org
See-The-Sea.Org Home - Ocean environment Preservation and ...
"What we think is happening is that the oceans are becoming more stratified as the water warms," said Boyce. "The plants need sunlight from above and nutrients from below; and as it becomes more stratified, that limits the availability of nutrients."
Estimates range between 85 and 95 percent of the heat attributable to global warming has been absorbed by the ocean, mostly in the upper layer.
To counteract the problems of sea level rise, icecap melting and thermal stratification this is causing, heat must be converted to energy in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is the means by which this is accomplished.
Conventional OTEC has been impeded by the size and cost of the pipes required and environmentally by the volume of water these pipes move.
GWMM OTEC is BC technology that uses a heat pipe and counter-current heat transfer system that overcomes these problems to produce as much as 750 million barrels/day of sustainable energy, while eliminating carbon emissions, increasing carbon dioxide absorption (because cooler water absorbs more CO2), limiting sea level rise and reducing the thermal stratification that is causing the phytoplankton decline.
It is an opportunity we are about to blow by not securing the global intellectual property rights.
There are other options for this pipe line, only they are more expensive, wouldn't want that now would we, how would the company afford the huge bonuses the executives have signed themselves up for.
The poor, working and middle class have lousy lobbyists, unlike the wealthy who have the best that money can buy.
According to Canada's Dept of Fisheries and Oceans: Canada's salt water area, known as the "Exclusive Economic Zone" (EEZ) area comprises almost 3,000,000 square kilometres."
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/canadasoceans-oceansducanada/marinezones-zonesmarines-eng.htm#shelf
You would think that we would do what ALL other marine nations do - and that is to fully and aggressively protect our sovereign waters from military & terrorist threat, human trafficking, contraband runners and other law enforcement concerns - and threats to the health of the ocean life in our waters.
The fact that some of our own 1997 legislation (duly passed in the House of Commons) regarding our sovereign ocean area hasn't been put into effect is outrageous!
Dr. Suzuki states:
"Our 1997 Oceans Act has yet to be effectively implemented. And the Species at Risk Act has been largely inadequate. Although Canada has made an international commitment to establish a protected network covering 10 per cent of our ocean territory, it has protected less than one per cent."
Pathetic! It's a pathetic commitment to stewardship of our portion of Earth's oceans - and it's a pathetic commitment to those in the fishery and tourism industries whose livelihoods are dependent upon a healthy marine eco-system.
Thanks for all the educating you do, Dr Suzuki - we never stop learning from the Dean of the environment.
a referendum will allow the people of british columbia to decide and take it out of government's hands
the various governments involved (canada, alberta, usa, china etc) have little interest in my coastline or the pristine valleys between the pacific and alberta
i have started the process for a legislative initiative to stop this pipeline'c construction, i would like people to consider it and sign it ...it is the only legal way i know that will stop this pipeline once and for all
for the record i have nothing against alberta getting its oil to market, my opposition is to them having a dump in my backyard on the way
We never see special interest groups hijack those processes at all do we?
Referendums are only deemed worthy if they ask a question relating to the whole province, this pipeline is exactly such a question.
Initiatives propose law under Provincial jurisdiction. Or in the case of the HST, abolish it.
Your comment is insulting to the voters of this Province if you don't think that we see through the smoke and mirrors and can't make up our own minds.
Just exactly who are these special interest groups you mention? And how did they disrupt the one and only referendum we've had..The HST, which of course was overwhelmingly defeated by the will of the people.
As a final thought, what is so wrong with the people making all the decisions that count?
When did our elected hired help last earn any respect for good decision making?