In his article, Mr Swain says “On the environmental side, the media coverage has been almost entirely about the risks of the pipeline itself. Leaks or bursts could seriously damage any of the 600-odd streams it must cross, many of which are key parts of salmon ecosystems”.  However, he inquires “… what about the saltwater side of this transport system?”.

Mr Swain describes the route to Kitimat as “… 300 km of tricky navigation in waters distinguished by fog, storms, and quite amazing tidal currents.”  He further describes the preparations needed to “… reduce navigational risks to an acceptable minimum …”.   These would include an expanded pilotage system, with new stations at Kitimat and Banks Island, boats to service the tankers, as well as Coast Guard ships to supervise the transits and to respond to emergencies.

An alternative route to Prince Rupert is suggested by Mr Swain which would give a more direct entrance to the Pacific Ocean reducing the probability of a tanker disaster and the investment by the Coast Guard and the Pilotage Authority.

At the end of his piece Mr Swain urges to ask ourselves: “… why Enbridge chose the less safe route, and whether we as taxpayers have to pay the premium for the risks the company has created”.

A full copy of this article can be found here.

**Please note that PacMARA takes no position on the Enbridge’s proposed pipeline issue.

Can the ban on shark finning in North America help systematic conservation planning efforts?

Shark finning is a serious problem as the practice is decimating shark populations around the world. However, the efforts of various non-profits, politicians and governments, and many individuals to ban shark finning have been successful in cities across North America, and the efforts are currently spilling over into Europe.

Shark finning is the act of catching a shark, cutting off all of its fins, and throwing the shark back in the water…still ALIVE. The barbaric procedure is undertaken for a special dish highly desired in Asian countries. Shark fin soup is considered lucky in Asian cultures and holds high status in social circles. It is also a billion dollar industry.

Until recently, shark fin soup could only be afforded by the rich, as the price was extremely high. Now, however, many Asians can afford the dish – meaning millions of people – as China’s population nears 1 billion. So the number of shark fins used for soup has increased drastically; 95% of which are consumed by China.

China has not yet passed legislation to protect sharks from finning, although efforts are underway. Recently, a hard-fought bill banned the possession and sale of shark fins in California, the largest consumer outside of Asia. The legislation was due to a unique collaboration between many NGOs ranging from the Humane Society to Heal the Bay. Individuals, such as food writers and cartoonists, also helped raise public awareness on the issue.

Other governments to ban finning include Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and Chile. Canada is in the process of banning shark fin importation as well, which would stop around 77,000 kilograms from coming into the country per year. Fins and their soup are already illegal in and around Toronto.

Protecting sharks from finning could ignite the public to want Marine Protected Areas in the Oceans. MPAs are hard to sell to the public as they are seen more as an exclusion tool than a protection tool. If MPAs concentrate on protecting sharks within a set of boundaries, than other species found within those boundaries will also be protected. Therefore, managers can use sharks as the fuel to get the public to demand Marine Protected Areas in the Oceans.
This demand for conservation rather than consumption would allow conservation planners to incorporate shark protection into systematic marine conservation planning efforts. An advantage of including sharks in conservation planning is that their distribution is widespread, requiring more area to be considered for protection. If more areas are protected for sharks, then other habitats and species that lie within the boundaries would also be protected.

Do you think that bans on shark finning and on shark fin soup will help systematic conservation planning efforts for our oceans?

- Andrew Lewin, Board Member; and Heather Coleman, Science Advisor

It was much less of a challenge than expected to gather enough tiny plastic pieces from each sampling site for our group to study a variety of aspects including their release of organic molecules into the ocean, their assimilation into the marine foodweb, and bacteria degrading their surfaces. We are still processing samples from the recent cruise, but a potential outcome may be finding unusual anaerobic microbes living where debris accumulates. These microbes could help destroy toxic chemicals on land or digest waste materials, such as sewage, as a source of energy and clean water.

In addition to a number of research questions that have not yet been answered, the next logical step is to devise economically and politically practical solutions to curb plastic input to the ocean. To get a feeling for aspects of this problem that other scientists, advocates and educators are studying, check out a small sample of sites dedicated to the problem of plastic in the ocean:

Charles Moore, who started the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, was one of the first people to appreciate the problem of marine debris after sailing through the North Pacific Gyre in 1997.

The International Pellet Watch analyses contaminants stuck to pre-production plastic pellets and currently needs samples from Canada!

The NOAA Marine Debris Program website effectively educates visitors about the topic.

Three engineers from the University of Victoria sailed around the world over three years to document debris and raise awareness at a community-level after founding Ocean Gybe.

Project Sea SWEEP, part of Marine Affairs Research and Education, is a new organization focused on finding solutions to marine debris.

And there are a number of other organizations working towards a solution for the marine debris problem. But one of the most valuable things that each of us can do is reduce our plastic consumption every day to keep scenes like this out of the ocean.

- Heather Coleman, Science Advisor

-       While the BP oil spill is on everyone’s mind, the Enbridge Pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands is proposed to bring over half a million barrels of oil a day to Kitimat, where it will get loaded onto ships that will navigate through rough waters of BC’s central coast to make it’s way to overseas market.

-       After years of campaigning by environmental groups and deliberation by government, the 9000-year-old globally unique Glass Sponge Reefs are one step closer to protection as they have been formally identified as an area of interest for Marine Protected Areas status.

-       Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area on the southern end of the Queen Charlotte Islands was just approved by Parliament linking the environmental protection of the mountaintops of the national park to the to the surrounding seafloor, a first for Canada, and possibly the world.

-       The concept of the inclusion of food availability and quality (i.e. Salmon) and acoustic conditions in the definition of critical habitat of endangered killer whales is now in court, affecting the scope of the Species at Risk Recovery Strategies.

-       The Cohen Commission is now underway.  This is the inquiry into the decline of sockeye salmon on the Fraser River.

With so many different things happening concurrently, a few questions come to mind…

Are we being efficient in our decision-making?

Are these issues being treated as if they are independent of one another?

How is the big picture being addressed?

How can we implement a more integrated, ecosystem-based approach to management that would maximize environmental conservation, economic productivity and community health?

Can a process such as PNCIMA answer some of those questions?

What do you think?

As hundreds of thousands of litres of oil gush into our global ocean from the offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, today of all days, we need to think about the health of our oceans.

Everyone agrees that what is happening in the Gulf is a travesty and that we need to prevent something like that from happening anywhere ever again.

Where does that leave us on Canada’s Pacific Coast?

Currently there is a moratorium for drilling for offshore oil and gas in Canada’s Pacific waters.  However, the risk of an oil spill remains because:

(1) The moratorium is not legally binding and discussions continue about developing the industry.

(2) Approximately 3.9 million tonnes of Alberta crude oil are shipped off from Vancouver every year.

(3) the Enbridge Pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands is proposed to bring over half a million barrels of oil everyday to Kitimat, where it will get loaded onto ships that will navigate through rough waters of BC’s central coast to make it’s way to overseas markets.

The potential for an oil spill exists here on our coast.

• How do you feel about that?
• What do you think we should do in face of this risk?
• How should decisions about the important ocean issues be made?

When so much is at risk, it is important to take a holistic view and assess the risk and possible cost across a range of geographic and time scales.  How are various industries, conservation projects, communities and jobs negatively or positively affected? How can we examine a broad range of variables concurrently to understand the tradeoffs?

These questions highlight the need for comprehensive marine planning and ecosystem-based approaches to manage our marine resources.  Tools such as InVEST can help us evaluate these important tradeoffs.

Incorporating the needs, considerations and information of the various stakeholders, governing bodies and First Nations in a transparent and inclusive manner offers great promise to ensure that our decisions about mixing oil and water will be the best decisions possible.

Take a moment to reflect on this today, on World Ocean Day, because after all, it’s one big ocean we all share.

The Golden Horn Estuary, once “the most romantic waterway in Europe,’’ suffered through 40 years of uncontrolled industrial and urban growth after World War II. Basically, someone decided that it would be a great idea to concentrate industry on the shores of this Ottoman playground and cultural centre for ease of waste disposal. So 1/3 of the estuarine surface area was filled – that’s staggering! With the factories came an incursion of tenement homes with zero infrastructure planning, let alone a waste disposal system. Ironic, since the Golden Horn may have been the site of the world’s first environmental management program in the 1450s (Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror limited settlement, and mandated forestation and re-use of pottery materials).

I’ll leave the gory details to my paper (here or email me for a copy), but suffice it to say that the estuary was an ecological and human health disaster for decades, although not for a lack of planning attempts by the city and business owners. I do have to mention that the hydrogen sulfide stench was enough to bowl you over, especially on a hot summer day.

Then in 1984, everything changed. A new mayor strengthened the water and sewerage administration and passed a restoration plan with 100% city council approval. They demolished and relocated 620 industries, 1200 shops, and 5000 homes along the shores and nearly finished the wastewater collection and removal infrastructure in just a few years. With a mayoral shift in 1989, however, progress was stalled until environmental management was again deemed important following the next change in power. The sewage system was then completed, 5 million cubic meters of anoxic sludge was dredged from the estuary (that’s a lot) through an innovative process, a floating bridge that impeded water circulation was removed, and cultural and social facilities were established.

The estuary rebounded spectacularly and local mentality changed along with it. I asked someone why he picked up his post-picnic trash (Istanbullus are notorious for leaving it), and was told that he thinks of the estuary as a valuable resource now that it is clean again. It certainly helped that the city launched a massive campaign to promote its good deeds. This photo shows Mayor Gurtuna about to jump into the Golden Horn – an entirely unthinkable act just a few years earlier. Note the substantial news presence documenting his swim. And even more convincing was the discovery of seahorses living in the estuary a few years ago – a very pollution-phobic creature!

My point is this: I don’t know the answer for how to fix British Columbia’s marine planning and management problems, but I know what worked (and didn’t) for Istanbul. These two places couldn’t be more different, but maybe some lessons can translate. Managing the Golden Horn was only successful after decisive actions were taken by a strong leader with environmental health, and thus long-term community health, as the primary goal. We could also use stronger management authority and a solid 20 year plan. Mayor Dalan’s 1984 plan was developed with heavy input from scientists that directed the water and sewerage administration and acted as secretary general of the municipality, as well as from business owners (although he had some very strong and powerful opponents). Mayor Gurtuna relied upon engineers to devise new technology for a more successful dredging operation than the old standbys. And of course we could use more community support, maybe encouraged by government “bragging” about successful programs.

But one thing that was left out of Istanbul’s planning process was real community involvement. That’s the role that PacMARA is trying to fill. We want to facilitate members of all kinds of communities (federal and provincial governments, First Nations, coastal communities, industries, commercial and recreational fishing, etc.) to work together to better plan and manage our resources.

We all know this, but it’s good to re-enforce these thoughts every once in a while with examples from other times and places.

- Heather Coleman, Science Advisor

Photo credits: ISKI (the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration), http://nomasliteraturblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/karawanen-des-orients-unterwegs-auf-legendaren-handelsrouten/.

delicious, disputed, and dwindling

Immediate comparisons arise between West Coast salmon and East Coast cod – delicious, disputed, and dwindling at a rate so alarming, the Cohen commission has been named to investigate why only one in 10 sockeye returned to the Fraser River this year (Sign Of The Fish: Another Judicial Inquiry – Oct. 13).

It is no longer possible to deny that salmon may soon suffer cod’s fate. The glaring question is why? Is it overfishing or the single-stock focus of fisheries science? Is it bad politics versus good science, or perverse subsidies obstructing rational economics? In any event, worldwide stocks of large fish are estimated to have been reduced to one-tenth of what they were 50 years ago.

Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen should be urged to look at the full breadth of the marine ecosystem within which we and the salmon live. We must accept that the Fraser River salmon are more than one threatened species in a singularly large river. Ecosystem-level problems require ecosystem-level solutions. If a narrow view is taken, or politics-as-usual prevails, the salmon become, for better or worse, the cod of the West Coast.

Jeff Ardron, Victoria, BC
Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association