Jeffrey hutchings keynote address importance of scientific integrity

Jeffrey Hutchings Department of Biology Dalhousie University

The Importance of Scientific Integrity and the

Implementation of Effective Environmental Legislation

http://bp3.blogger.com/_R0jcDRd6Nxg/R_9SFlq0itI/AAAAAAAABqQ/rgibKb8nFc4/s1600-h/beluga+whale.jpg

Protect existing diversity and rebuild depleted populations and species to restore natural diversity.

Restore the natural resilience of Canada’s ecosystems to allow them to adapt to natural and human-induced change.

SARA: A necessary first step to solutions

Climate Change Fisheries Oil & Gas Exrtaction

Royal Society of Canada Expert Panels on GMOs (2001) & Marine Biodiversity (2012) COSEWIC (2000-12); Chair (2006-2010) Numerous DFO science advisory meetings President, Canadian Society For Ecology and Evolution (2012-2013)

Communication of Science to Society and Decision-Makers: Some Personal Involvement

21 June 1997 (Front Page and Second Page article

in the Saturday Ottawa Citizen)


Wednesday, June 25, 1997

“Hutchings, *Carl+ Walters and *Richard+ Haedrich are locked in a time warp, citing and distorting incidents from the 1980s to support their agenda.”

“This is not a scientific paper. It is science fiction. It is based on innuendo and misrepresentation which have no place in a scientific journal.”

COSEWIC (April 2008): Special Concern

IUCN (2006): Vulnerable (=Threatened)

UNITED STATES (May 2008): Threatened

•COSEWIC took “the easy way out”

• “Every man on the street knows

the polar bear’s threatened.” Pete Ewins, WWF Canada (April 2008)

(CBC, Toronto Star, Globe & Mail)

COSEWIC “failed miserably” Andy Derochers (Univ. Alberta &

Chair of IUCN Polar Bear group;

Edmonton Journal Aug 2008)

US-based Center for Biological Diversity (the ENGO that

originally petitioned the US Government to list polar

bear) described COSEWIC’s decision as ‘‘weak’’,

saying that ‘‘Polar Bears in Canada should instead be

listed as a threatened or endangered species, not a

species of special concern’’

(CBC News; 30 April 2008).

“To make matters worse, the

committee hired a climate

change skeptic to co-write

the report.” (Ed Struzik, Edmonton

Journal; 10 Jan 2010)

Climate Change Fisheries Oil/Gas Extraction

Enabling Legislation, Regulations

or Policy

National and/or International Convention or Agreement

Implementation of Law, Regulations

or Policy

Effective Environmental Legislation

Scientific Integrity

How does scientific integrity contribute to effective environmental legislation?

Objectivity Credibility Uncertainty Accountability Peer Review Transparency

Conduct/credibility of science Peer review of science Communication of science Use of science




Primary functions: Assess the status of, and identify threats to, wildlife species at risk (Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern) Communicate these assessments to the public and to jurisdictions (fed., prov., & terr. governments; wildlife management boards)


• National science advisory body; membership inclusive of government, but decisions made independent of government

• Advice is communicated to the public at the same time that it is communicated to government

• Advice based on the best available information, irrespective of the perceived socioeconomic and political consequences of that advice

Scientific Integrity: Credibility of the Science of Species Status Assessment

• 4 Federal Government Departments/Bodies • 13 Provincial & Territorial Governments • 1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee • 3 Non-Government Science Members • 10 Species Specialist Subcommittee (2 co-chairs each)

Composition (31 votes; typically 50 members at a meeting)

Individuals are nominated by COSEWIC; names sent to Minister after an

open competition and evaluation

Species at Risk Act 16(6): Each member of COSEWIC shall exercise his or her discretion in an independent manner.

Scientific Integrity: Independence of Members of COSEWIC

Members appointed by the Minister do not represent governments, ENGOs, industry, or any other organization

Opinions and votes are not based on jurisdictional or any other affiliation

These are ministerial appointments not political appointments

SARA 16(1): Members [are] appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and with any experts and expert bodies …that the Minister considers to have relevant expertise.

Negatively affect scientific integrity…

Ministerial rejection of COSEWIC’s advice on membership can negatively affect:

independence of COSEWIC from govt COSEWIC’s ability to fulfil its mandate credibility of COSEWIC’s assessments quality of advice from COSEWIC to minister societal trust in COSEWIC’s advice

…negatively affect the value and effectiveness of legislation.


Canadian Species at Risk

(April 1978-Oct 2012)

(Extinct 15)

Extirpated 23

Endangered 287

Threatened 161

Special Concern 179

650

Approx. 18% (n=120) of species at risk

are marine


Group Wildlife Species at Risk (Extirpated, Endangered,

Threatened, Special Concern)

Fishes 71

Mammals 34

Birds 8

Molluscs 3

Reptiles 4

Total 120

Marine Wildlife Species assessed by COSEWIC as being at risk (Oct 2012)

22% of all COSEWIC wildlife

species at risk are fishes

Communication of Science

80-96% decline since 1980

in Pacific waters

Canary Rockfish

Porbeagle (89% decline

since 1961 (NW Atlantic)

American Plaice

Acadian Redfish

Gulf of St. Lawrence: 99.5% decline

Northeast Newfoundland:

99.8% decline since 1978

Newfoundland and

Labrador: 95%

decline since 1960

© Canadian Shark Research Lab

Not Wanted on the Voyage Only two E/T marine fish

have been listed under SARA

Ogac Lake

Atlantic Cod: Endangered

Decline of Atlantic Cod ( ~2billion): Greatest Numerical Loss of a

Vertebrate in Canadian History

27 million

Humans By weight, the loss

is equal to:

Financial Losses

of more than

$1 billion

annually

Establish a transparent evaluation and consultation process for decisions not to list a species at risk, incl. external review of supporting listing-decision analyses, e.g., socio-economic repts

Scientific Integrity: Peer Review

Basis for Decision Not to List (2005)

• if listed, closure of all directed and bycatch fisheries for cod

(DFO Minister Regan); loss of up to $82 million per year

• if listed, there would be a ‘cascading effect’ on economy, leading to reduced funding to rural schools and hospitals, smaller transfer payments and more people on social assistance

Atlantic Cod (Newfoundland & Labrador Population)

(98% decline since early 1960s) COSEWIC Status: ENDANGERED (2003)

• DFO Science: “Bycatches by Canadian and non-Canadian fishermen in the offshore portion of 2J3KL [Northern cod range],

if continued at recent levels, would not jeopardize the recovery of that stock.” (DFO. 2004. CSAS Proc. 2004/040. Nat. Peer Review Mtg on Level of

Allowable Harm…in Support of Species at Risk)

• “A recovery strategy may accommodate a directed fishery.”

(DFO. 2004. CSAS Proc. 2004/040)

• 3NO (southern Grand Bank): “It was agreed that the Canadian bycatches in and of themselves do not jeopardize recovery, but that the foreign catches do increase jeopardy.” (DFO. 2004. CSAS Proc.

2004/040)

Closure of all Directed and Bycatch Fisheries? What was the Science Advice?

Scientific Integrity of Socio-Economic Analyses

Associated with Listing Decisions

• Address perceived costs to industry

• Inadequately address societal benefits of listing (e.g., non-use economic value)

• Inadequately address societal costs of not listing

Scientific Inadequacy Socio-economic analyses in support of decisions to not

list are not subjected to external peer review.

Sumi

(hat of Killer Whale)

Endangered & Threatened

Quatchi (sasquatch)

Not Assessed

Vancouver Island Marmot

Endangered

Miga

(part Killer Whale)

Endangered & Threatened

Extinct

Endangered

Threatened

Species Concern

Caribou

1. There must be

transparency in the

communication of science

to decision-makers

and to society.

2. Interference with the

communication of science

is interference with science;

this is not a model that best serves society.

The

Communication

of Science

Nature (1997)

Wednesday, June 25, 1997

Interference in the communication of

science: 1997

Interference in the communication of

science: 2011

Fraser River (1375 km)

Atlantic Ocean

Arctic Ocean

Sockeye Salmon

Vancouver

2009: • 11 million forecasted

• 1 million returned

Commission of Inquiry Into the

Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River

(aka Cohen Commission; 29-10-2012)

“Our hypothesis is that the genomic signal associated with elevated [salmon] mortality is in response to a virus infecting fish before river entry and that persists to the spawning areas.” (Science. January 2011)

“Earlier this month (July 2011), the Cohen Commission saw an e-mail by Dr. Miller in which she complained about being kept away from a workshop because her DFO masters “fear that we will not be able to control the way the disease issue could be construed in the press.”

14 January 2011 Science

Since 2007, Canadian government scientists have required “pre-approval” from their minister’s office to speak with national and international journalists. Their ‘media lines’ also require ministerial approval.

10 July 2012 Parliament Hill

On the communication of science to society:

“An iron curtain is being drawn by government between science and society.”

“Closed curtains, especially those made of iron, make for very dark rooms.”

Interference with the communication of science

is interference with science.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 54: 1198-1210 (1997)

A Central Question: How should science be used in

environmental legislation decisions in a way that best serves society?

not

• ‘Science-based’ decisions that ignore or misrepresent scientific uncertainty

Inappropriate or Casual Use of Science by Government Departments

or Decision-Makers

• Decisions made in the absence of supporting science

• ‘Science-based’ decisions that are inconsistent with science

Casual Use of Science by Decision-Makers

June 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act were the the result of a process that excluded scientific advice,

in contravention of government and departmental policy regarding the use of scientific advice.

Casual Use of Science by Government Departments

and Decision-Makers

Prime Minister Harper: “Science, not politics” will decide the fate of the Enbridge pipeline. (7 August 2012)

“DFO has not conducted a review of all proposed [watercourse] crossings.”

“However, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into regulatory permitting phase.”

“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures.”

(DFO Response, dated 6 June 2012, to request from the Joint Review Panel respecting the Enbridge Northern Gateway project; File No. OF-FAC-OIL-N304-2010-01 01)

Quality and credibility of science advice appear not to

be impediments to project approval

or an evaluation of risk mitigation

1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Year

Ca

tch

(1

00

0 t

on

ne

s)

Updated from: Hutchings & Myers (1995)

Estimated catches of Northern Cod

from 1508 to 2010

16th Century

mid 20th Century

Scientific Advice: Reduce catch quotas significantly to avoid stock collapse (fishing mortality was 3x sustainable level).

Response: Marginal reductions in quota (4% to 15% annually) from 1988 to 1991.

Decisions with questionable scientific merit

Northern Cod

What followed?

Ministerial Reflections

“These questions are not decided by scientists. And it is just as well that they are not, because if they were, we would have wiped out the entire offshore fishery last year”. (1989)

Former Canadian Fisheries Minister

John Crosbie

Spawner Biomass of Northern Cod had declined 99% when directed

fishing ceased in 1992


Northern Cod

What were the official expectations of recovery?

Dept Fisheries & Oceans Media Press Release NR-HQ-92-58E 2 July 1992

“A two-year moratorium offers the only chance for the [northern cod] spawning biomass to recover quickly to its long-term average, permitting resumption of the inshore fishery in the spring of 1994.”

Spawner Biomass of Northern Cod had declined 99% when directed

fishing ceased in 1992


Northern Cod

1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

0

400

800

1200

1600

Sp

aw

nin

g s

tock b

iom

ass (

tho

usa

nd

to

nn

es)

1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

Year

Ca

tch

rate

(fish

per

tow

)

DFO’s official recovery forecast(s)

DFO’s projections: 126-200% per year Best available data : 9-19% per year

Ministerial Reflections

“These questions are not decided by scientists. And it is just as well that they are not, because if they were, we would have wiped out the entire offshore fishery last year”. (1989)

Former Canadian Fisheries Minister

John Crosbie

“The problem with the fisheries scientists [is] they believe in themselves too much.” (1998)

Human and financial costs of casual use or misuse of science

Closure of northern cod fishery preceded expenditure of $3-4 billion in financial aid

30-40,000 people in Newfoundland lost their jobs (total population in 1992: 568,000)

10% of population left Newfoundland in next 10 years

There are few, often no,

political costs associated with

poor ocean environmental

decisions.

SARA should be fully implemented for marine fishes by listing…species and…affording them the full benefits of recovery strategies, including recovery targets.

Why SARA? Why not Fisheries Act?

Scientific Integrity: Use of Science

“The amended Fisheries Act will provide flexibility and establish new tools to authorise deposits of deleterious substances.” (Letter from Minister Ashfield to J. Hutchings; 21 June 2012)

Issue of Public Confidence Unprecedented depletions of marine fish

occurred under the auspices of the Fisheries Act

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

B

BMSY

0.2

US Argentina Australia

EU

Canada

International

International

International

New Zealand South Africa

Current fish biomass, B, relative to biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY .

Source: Royal Society of Canada expert panel report on Sustaining Canadian Marine Biodiversity (2012)

“The amended Fisheries Act will provide flexibility and establish new tools to authorise deposits of deleterious substances.” (Letter from Minister Ashfield to J. Hutchings; 21 June 2012)

Issue of Public Confidence Unprecedented depletions of marine fish

occurred under the auspices of the Fisheries Act

Scientific integrity of ‘recovery’ under Fisheries Act: role of science vs. industry ‘consultations’

Keyword Comparison

in National Legislation

Keyword Magnuson-

Stevens Act

(1996, 2007)

Fisheries Act

(1985)

Oceans

Act

(1996)

Species at

Risk Act

(2002)

Recovery 12 2 (legal costs) 0 83

Rebuild 27 0 0 0

Overfishing 45 0 0 0

Target 22 0 0 0

Proscriptive vs Discretionary

Legislation

Keywords Magnuson-

Stevens Act

(1996, 2007)

Fisheries Act

(1985)

Oceans

Act

(1996)

Species at

Risk Act

(2002)

Minister

must

2 0 0 53

Minister

shall

195 3 4 3

Minister

may

12 24 12 41

Sections in

Act

408 88 52 133

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada reduce the discretionary power…exercised by the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Under contemplation:

Any species whose management falls under legislation other than

SARA might not be subjected to SARA

Affected species?? marine fishes, freshwater fishes,

marine mammals, migratory birds…..

Decision-Making Components

Socio-Economic

Science

Politics

Other (e.g., policy,legal, cultural)

Science Politics

Socio- Economics

Other (policy, legal, culture)

To what extent should government decisions

be influenced by science?

One Extreme

ScienceScience

Prior to the passage of SARA, many academic scientists

wanted species-listing decisions to be made

only by scientists

(Letter to Prime Minister in 2001

signed by 1,331 scientists)

Another Extreme

Science

Non-Science Factors (e.g., politics,

socio-economics, other)

Recent changes to the habitat-protection provisions of the

Fisheries Act

A Common Variant

Science

Other

Non-Science Factors (e.g., politics,

socio-economics, other)

Science ‘Science-based’ decision making

‘Science-determined’ decision making

Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 54: 1198-1210 (1997)

A Central Question: How should science be used in

environmental legislation decisions in a way that best serves society?

not

An effective science advisory process brings both sound science and the best science to

bear on key issues, and ensures that:

1. Ministers can be confident that the advice is based on a rigorous and objective assessment of all available science.

2. Credible science advice is considered by decision makers.

3. The public & parliamentarians are confident that government is using science in the best Interests of society.

Canadian environmental legislation in which scientific integrity (conduct of science, external peer review, communication of science) is implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged and embedded by statute.

Species At Risk Act

Could it do more? Should it do more?

Scientific definitions of ‘recovery’ and ‘critical habitat’

Strengthening the Species At Risk Act

Non-discretionary, statutory language regarding the scientific credibility of listing decisions (e.g., peer review of socio-economic analyses and ministerial communications)

Ensure that ministerial appointments to COSEWIC do not become political appointments

Protection of biodiversity per se

Norway’s Nature Diversity Act (2009)

Establish management objectives for ecosystems and species, e.g., “maintain species and their genetic diversity for the long term… ensure that species occur in viable populations in their natural ranges”

Decision-making practices pertaining to biodiversity are to follow key sustainability principles, such as: (i) the precautionary principle; (ii) the ecosystem approach.

Govt decisions must provide a statement on how the

principles have been applied

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (1976)

Tora Aaslund (Norway) Minister of Research and Higher

Education (2007-2012)

‘Political leadership is necessary to bring science to society;

scientific activity must be the basis for sound policy making.’ 4 October 2012

Ville Niinistö (Finland) Minister of the

Environment (2011-present) ‘We need scientific support to meet CBD and

EU targets.’ 4 October 2012

“Politics that disregard

science and knowledge

will not stand the test of time.”

“Science must underpin our policies.

If we compromise on scientific facts

and evidence, repairing nature will

be enormously costly – if possible at all.”

Gro Harlem Brundtland Former Prime Minister of Norway (1997)

Jeffrey hutchings keynote address importance of scientific integrity

Documents

Transcript of Jeffrey hutchings keynote address importance of scientific integrity