From November 30 to December 11, 2015, world leaders will gather in Paris in an attempt once more to negotiate an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hence global warming. Below I provide my thoughts in the lead up to this international convention.

Since the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 that came into force in 1994 and is now ratified by 195 nations, there have been twenty Conferences of Parties. There are high expectations that the upcoming twenty-first Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris later this year will deliver an international agreement that will allow the UNFCCC to attain its objective of “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

But this is not the first time high expectations have preceded and subsequently followed a COP. In 1997 at COP3 the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was adopted wherein Annex I nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels on average by 2008-2012. While the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, the lack of its binding nature, combined with Canada formally pulling out of the agreement in 2012 and the United States never ratifying it, watered down its effectiveness.

Similarly, expectations leading up to COP15 in Copenhagen were almost euphoric that a post Kyoto agreement would be reached. In the end COP15 was a disappointment. The so-called Copenhagen Accord, taken note of, as opposed to being agreed to, by the Conference of Parties outlined a loose set of aspirational goals supported by 114 nations. As part of the Copenhagen Accord, countries submitted voluntary reduction targets with the aim of holding the global temperature increase to less than 2°C. But as noted by, Rogelj (2010) if countries actually met their non-binding targets, it would be virtually certain that warming would exceed this amount. The disconnect between science and international policy is clearly quite profound.

Whether or not society chooses to take the necessary steps to mitigate climate change ultimately depends on the extent to which we value the importance of intergenerational equity. Ultimately and collectively we must ask ourselves whether or not we believe that future generations are entitled to the same environmental well-being and biodiversity that has been afforded our generation. What is clear from our scientific understanding of global warming is that the decisions being made today will have profound consequences for generations to come; yet future generations are not part of today’s decision making and today’s decision makers won’t have to live the consequences of the decisions they make.

Science can never be used to answer a question concerning the importance of intergenerational equity nor can it ever be used to prescribe a particular policy. However, science is able to examine the implications of various policy options. Policy can also be developed or modified to reflect the latest science. But in the end, the formulation of policy requires engaging a variety of stakeholders including special interests, religious groups, and industry. It also requires dealing with ethical, political, legal, financial and social issues including any potential application of the precautionary principle.

One thing that seems clear is that the nonbinding international climate treaty process to date has been a colossal failure. The negotiations have played out like a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons. It is in every person’s best financial interest to do absolutely nothing about greenhouse gas mitigation since the cost of action is borne by the individual yet the cost of inaction is distributed amongst billions of people in the generations to come.

Perhaps as we move forward with the COP process a more useful role for the United Nations at this juncture would be to attempt to reach agreement on an internationally acceptable price trajectory for carbon emissions. Such carbon pricing might include provisions that allow carbon tariffs to be added to imports from nations that have not implemented a domestic carbon pricing policy. For without global efforts to ensure the internalization of externalities associated with these emissions, it seems unlikely that announcing more non-binding aspirational reduction targets will be an effective mitigative tool. We’ve had more than two decades of evidence that this process has not worked.

Here science can be helpful in informing international pricing discussions by recognizing that warming responds near-linearly to cumulative carbon emissions. This allows for the calculation of the allowable emissions required to ensure future warming is below some specified (say 2°C) level (Weaver 2008; Allen et al., 2009; Meinshausen et al., 2009; Zickfeld et al., 2009).

Whether or not such discussions take place of course relies upon political will. The barriers to introducing climate change policy that would ensure a sustainable future are neither technological nor behavioural. They are almost purely political. For until such time as our elected leaders recognize and subsequently act upon the knowledge that the long-term climatic impacts of their decisions, or more appropriately lack thereof, are very serious, we see little prospect of meaningful international agreements being reached through the UNFCCC process.

Right now, Metro Vancouver is embroiled in a court case with Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD). The outcome of that case, which is being fought over a relatively minor $1000 fine, will have important implications for our province’s ability to regulate air quality.

Here’s the essence of it: Air quality falls within provincial jurisdiction. This means that the provincial government has the power to set and enforce air quality standards. The British Columbia government has chosen to delegate some of that authority to Metro Vancouver so that it can enforce those standards on behalf of the province. When Metro Vancouver tried to enforce its standards on FSD after soy bean dust was discharged in a manner contrary to regulations, the port refused to pay the fine. Their view is that ports are federal lands, under federal jurisdiction— provincial air quality laws do not apply in the same way. So the courts now have to decide if the province has the power to regulate air quality at FSD.

Why does this matter?

Because if the province can regulate air quality on port lands, it could theoretically use that power to stop certain port activities, like the expansion of thermal coal exports that is currently underway at FSD.

Thermal coal is the single biggest contributor to global warming. Unlike metallurgical coal, which is mined in B.C, thermal coal passing through our ports largely comes from the U.S., meaning that it contributes to only a handful of B.C. jobs. Stopping the expansion of these exports would represent an important step forward in the transition to a low carbon economy.

Yet, there’s also a bigger issue here: British Columbians should have a right to regulate their own air quality. After all, we’re the ones that breathe it.

Given the significance of this court case for our province, I asked the government to clarify its role. Specifically, I asked:

1. What is the government’s position on the validity of the ticket (#006035) issued to Fraser Surrey Docks LP by the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the discharge of air contaminants?
2. In your government’s opinion, how far reaching are the powers surrounding air quality that you have delegated to the Greater Vancouver Regional District? Do they include federal port lands?
3. What is the historic and current involvement of the province in this case?
4. Following question three, does the province have any plans to either remain involved or get involved in this case in the future? If so, what are these plans?

Yesterday, I received a disappointing response from the Minister of the Environment, Mary Polak. While her letter acknowledged the importance of the court case, she was clear that the government “will await the court’s decision before commenting further.”

I understand the desire not to comment on a matter that is before the courts. Yet, I would hope that with an issue as fundamental as the quality of our air, our government would be more open with British Columbians about the role they are taking in the case.

The courts will rule in the coming months on the validity of this air quality permit. When they do, we should all be looking to the provincial government to see what it will do to help stop the expansion of thermal coal exports and to protect our right to healthy air in B.C.

Today I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with a large group of individuals concerned about the plight of our Pacific wild salmon stocks. They included Alexandra Morton, who many will know from the documentary Salmon Confidential, Stan Porboszcz from Watershed Watch, Karen Wristen from Living Oceans Society, Sabra Woodworth from Salmon Are Sacred, Eddie Gardner from the Skwah First Nation, Jefferey Young from the David Suzuki Foundation, Torrance Coste from Wilderness Committee,  Dr. Jeff Matthews, president of Sea Shepherd Canada, Bonny Glambeck from Clayoquot Action, Joseph Martin from the Tla-o-qui-aht First nation council, and Dawn Morrison from the Indigenous Food System Network.

I was afforded the honour of introducing a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. I also introduced a second petition signed by more than 100 business organizations across the province who supported the individuals who signed the larger petition. The business organizations argued that they are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Finally, in Question period I explored what steps (if any) government is taking to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms on sockeye salmon migration routes. Below I provide videos and text of my exchange with the Minister of Agriculture as well as my submission of the petitions.

I have made it a practice to always give government my initial question so I can get an informed response. I do not provide my supplementary question as it will depend on the Minister’s response. The Minister has promised me a more substantive answer to my questions in the coming weeks. I very much look forward to receiving the information.

Video of Question

Question

A. Weaver: The Cohen commission recommended that fish farms not be located on sockeye salmon migration routes, yet this week millions of sockeye fry will be migrating past fish farms in the Discovery Passage and Broughton Archipelago.

Scientific research has suggested a link between fish farm lice outbreaks and the spread of diseases like the piscine reovirus, salmonid alphavirus and the infectious salmon anemia virus The spread, obviously, of such diseases would have grave environmental, cultural and economic consequences for the province of British Columbia, let alone Canada.

Finally, a first in North America, the ‘Namgis Nation on northern Vancouver Island is farming Atlantic salmon at a land-based facility without posing any disease or sea lice threat to wild salmon.

To the Minister of Agriculture: what is the government doing to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms in the ocean and to promote the creation of more operations like the one the ‘Namgis Nation operates?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries, including an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We place the health of all wild fisheries, including salmon, as paramount. That’s why the government works with our federal counterparts and aquaculture operators to monitor for diseases and is prepared to implement a prompt, coordinated and science-based response if necessary.

I want to remind the members opposite that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the jurisdiction of licensing is that of the federal government and tenures is that of the provincial government.

The approval for licensing on the federal government side is quite high. They look for applications that can be rejected for anything to do with biotoxins, water quality, impacts to the environment, impacts to spawning areas, cumulative impact to fisheries and impact to navigable waters.

It’s also very high on the province’s role. We accept Land Act applications for new salmon aquaculture sites from companies that demonstrate world-class standards for resource sustainability.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for referring to the Supreme Court ruling, which in fact, actually, ensures that the province continues to retain jurisdiction over issuing land tenures that designate the area a fish farm will occupy.

Although section 8 of the Land Use Operational Policy for Aquaculture cites the provincial government’s sustainability principles as informing leasing decisions, current operating practices indicate these values are not being adequately applied.

Earlier this month the federal court ruled against an aquaculture licence condition that allowed diseased fish to be transferred into open-pen fish farms, and DFO — that’s federal, of course — has been given four months to fix this policy. Nevertheless, there remains provincial jurisdiction.

Given that we currently lack the regulations needed to verify the presence and control the spread of pathogens in farmed salmon, will the Minister of Agriculture today commit to stop granting new licences of occupation for this industry on sockeye salmon migration routes?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I have to repeat that the government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries. That’s why we employ two of the outstanding experts in fish biology right here in British Columbia. That’s why we have the great lab in Abbotsford, to make sure we continue testing for fish diseases.

The federal government is conducting a surveillance program on ISA, as the member has said, and the status of three viruses on the west coast — ISA, IHN and PRV. So far all results were negative, no virus.

When we look at IHN, they tested a total of 1,300 B.C. wild salmon and trout for IHN in 2012-2013. Again, all were negative, no virus.

Sea lice are native to B.C. waters, like many other wild animals which have a population cycle trend. What they find is the more that come during one season, the more potential for sea lice in the following season.

Once again, we take very seriously our role in the provision of licensing and also in tenuring. We will continue to hold those values very high to make sure that our wild salmon are protected in British Columbia.

Postscript

On Thursday, May 28, the Minister of Agriculture rose in the house to clarify and correct a response he gave me above. I am very grateful to the Minister for correcting the record. Below is the text of his clarification.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yesterday during question period in an effort to condense my answer to a member’s question, I accidentally grouped PRV with ISA and IHN. I just want to make sure I put on the record the correct answer. What I would like to clarify to the House regarding PRV, or piscine reovirus, is that many reoviruses are viruses without a disease. To date PRV is common in B.C. farmed fish and some wild fish, but it’s not associated with any disease.

Indeed, published scientific evidence indicates that PRV predates the introduction of salmon farming to our province. Some scientists think PRV is the cause of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, HSMI, a disease that affects farmed Atlantic salmon in Europe. Recent research shows that the type of PVR in Europe is different from the type of PRV in B.C. Lastly, HSMI does not occur in British Columbia.

Thank you for allowing me to clear up the record.

Video of Petition Submissions

Submission of First Petition Text

I would like to present a petition on this — probably the most irresponsible fiscal decision the government has ever made — day in the B.C. Legislature.

This is a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. The rationale for that I outlined in question period.

This petition very clearly identifies the wishes of British Columbians. This petition, I hope, is listened to by the government of British Columbia.

Submission of Second Petition Text

A. Weaver: I have a second petition.

Now this is a petition of over 100 business organizations across the province who are essentially supporting the 109,000 individuals who signed this. These business organizations are small business, umbrella organizations, environmental organizations, fly fishing organizations, river societies, sail societies— numerous societies across British Columbia.

They are asking that the following: we the undersigned are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Media Statement – May 19, 2015
Allan’s Withdrawal from Pipeline Hearings gives Urgency for Province to do the Same
For Immediate Release

Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, says that Robyn Allan’s withdrawal from the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline gives new urgency to his call that the provincial government pull out of the federal hearings and hold its own made-in-BC review.

“Robyn Allan was one of the real leaders in the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings,” says Andrew Weaver. “When someone as credible and as thoughtful as Robyn Allan writes such a scathing review of this process, we’d be wise to listen.”

Allan’s withdrawal comes just one month after the English Bay oil spill that saw several Vancouver beaches closed due to human health risks from the toxic oil slick. A recent report commissioned by the City of Vancouver emphasised the dire consequences for marine life should a larger spill occur.

An economist and former CEO of ICBC, Allan has been one of the most active intervenors in the NEB hearings. When it was discovered that oral cross-examination had been excluded from the review, Allan led intervenors in what was ultimately an unsuccessful effort to get it reinstated. The lack of oral cross-examination has been described as one of the deepest flaws in the hearing process, seriously undermining intervenors’ ability to evaluate Trans Mountain’s proposal.

Weaver is currently the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearings. He has been calling on the B.C. government to pull out and hold their own review process for more than six months.

“British Columbians have rightfully lost confidence in the Trans Mountain hearings. Our coastline is too important to leave up to such a flawed process. It’s time for the province to withdraw.”

Last week, Weaver tabled a Private Member’s Bill designed to help British Columbians regain control over the approval of oil pipelines. If passed, the bill would provide an additional tool to residences to force the B.C. government to pull out of the Federal-Provincial Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement and hold its own provincial review process.

-30-

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

If you look at the base of the B.C. marine ecosystem, you’ll find a funny little fish with a lot of names – eulachon, oulachon, oolichan, hooligan, ooligan, candlefish.  This species is critically important to the viability of numerous other species in our coastal waters, but has been quietly plummeting, with stocks down by ~98%. While economical, effective, and simple solutions to environmental crises may be few and far between, scientists in Oregon seem to have found an answer to the plight of the eulachon. The results are preliminary, but promising and word is spreading quickly through the fishing industry. To understand why this innovative research is so exciting and encouraging, we start near the bottom of the marine food chain with an examination of a fish of staggering importance.

Eulachon, a species of smelt that spawn in a limited number of rivers on the West Coast, spend most of their three-year life cycle in the marine environment where, much like herring, they play a pivotal role in sustaining the coastal food chain. As a forage fish, eulachon are a foundational species that feed hundreds of different types of animals. From salmon to marine birds, lingcod to killer whales, sea lions to eagles, nearly every marine animal in BC relies on forage fish as principal aspect of their diet.

Eulachon returning to spawn in the Columbia River. Photo by Sam Beebe, @sbeebe, CC-BY-2.0

Eulachon are vitally important to First Nations’ culture too; harvests are used for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. Eulachon’s high oil content has made them an incredibly valuable source of nutrients for coastal communities – it also means they’ll burn like a candle if lit on fire, which, logically enough, has earned them the name “candle fish.” For thousands of years, Coastal First Nations rendered eulachons into a grease, the health benefits and longevity of which made it a staple aspect of their diet. It was a coveted commodity traded between communities and carried in cedar boxes across well-trodden “grease trails” – the most famous of which stretches from Bella Coola to Quesnel.

Audry Duncan from the Haisla Nation setting up eulachon in a smoker. Photo by Sam Beebe, @sbeebe, CC-BY-2.0

Although there are still a few rivers, such as the Klinaklini and Kingcome that have strong runs, the eulachon population coast-wide in British Columbia is estimated to have declined by 98 per cent.

As a result, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has listed the Fraser River eulachon population as endangered, the Central Pacific Coast population as endangered, and the Nass/Skeena Rivers population as a species of special concern.

Despite their ecological and cultural importance, there are significant knowledge gaps about eulachon’s basic biology, migration routes, and historical spawning patterns. Unlike salmon, which are studied extensively, eulachon have little direct commercial market value (none currently as the fishery is now closed – though at one point there were active eulachon fisheries on the Fraser, Nass, Skeena, Klinaklini, and Kingcome Rivers). Intrinsically and indirectly, of course, they are invaluable and feed countless other market species. Given the constrained level of scientific attention given to eulachon, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) says it is difficult to conclusively pin-point the cause of their population crash. Instead, their decline has been linked to a variety of activities, such as the marine transportation of oil, natural gas, and toxic chemicals, estuary alteration, shoreline development, industrial runoff, agricultural pollution, trawl fisheries, and forestry activity.

According to recent egg and larval surveys in the Fraser River, DFO reports eulachon abundance as being at an all-time low. Considering the diversity between localized pressures, however, DFO notes that it is “unlikely that such threats would explain the nearly synchronous coast-wide decline of eulachon that has occurred.” 

Though certain threats, it is worth noting, have been more pervasive and persistent. Many believe that the shrimp trawl fishery, for example, is responsible for much of the eulachon collapse. 

Eulachon are prone to getting caught in mid-water and bottom nets trawling for other species, like the ones used to harvest shrimp. Virtually every eulachon that hits the deck of a fishing vessel will die, according to DFO’s report, and another 60-70% of the fish who escape through the net will be killed as “collateral damage”. 

Monitoring indicates that in‐season eulachon bycatch estimates have decreased over time, dropping from 22,406 pounds in 2001 to 8,818 pounds in 2005, and less than 2,205 pounds since 2006. It is hard not to speculate, however, that the reason fewer eulachon are being caught in shrimp nets is because there are fewer of them around to begin with, as indicated by this DFO graph from 2007.

 Fraser eulachon spawning stock biomass from 1995 to 2007 estimated by egg and larval survey at Fraser sampling locations.  

A population dynamics model conducted by DFO for the Fraser river eulachon run indicated that even a small removal or increased mortality rate (5t of the weakest cycle line) would significantly impair any potential for recovery. “Given the large uncertainty regarding magnitude of threats to the Eulachon,” the report continued, “minimal allowable harm should be permitted at this time, and be reduced below current levels as much as possible.” 

DFO also says that “climate change effects may impact both the marine and freshwater habitats.” The exceptionally large and warm expanse of water currently stretching across the North Pacific Ocean is, unfortunately, making this look quite likely.  “Right now it’s super warm all the way across the Pacific to Japan,” said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Newport, Ore. Not since records began has the region of the North Pacific Ocean been so warm for so long, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center reported. “The warm expanse has been characterized by sea surface temperatures as much as three degrees C (about 5.4 degrees F) higher than average, lasting for months, and appears on large- scale temperature maps as a red-orange mass of warm water many hundreds of miles across.” 

Image from Northwest Fisheries Science Center illustrating the expanse of warm water stretching across the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea.

The mistreatment of eulachon stocks in B.C. is an environmental and cultural tragedy, to say the least. Forage fish like herring and eulachon form a pillar that holds up the entire coastal ecosystem, yet for decades they have been hastily killed as bycatch and chucked overboard by the tonne, with little consideration for the consequences.

Yet all is not lost. Scientists in Oregon seem to have hit upon an effective and low-cost solution – they are lighting up the shrimp nets. Funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, researchers attached 10 green Lindgren-Pitman lights to the fishing line of each net. After 42 tows, the researchers found that the illuminated net caught 90% fewer eulachon than the regular trawl gear, but roughly the same amount of shrimp.

Image from NOAA, Left: A pink shrimp haul without the use of LED lights shows Eulachon bycatch. Right: The results of LED lights hung on the trawl lines. LEDs have significantly reduced bycatch of threatened Eulachon as well as other fish by showing where the fish can escape the net.

Specific light placement is key, though, as some variations actually increased bycatch levels. “The new technique was shown to be effective when the lights were placed four feet apart across the center third of the footrope, an area near the bottom of the trawl that keeps the net open as it moves through the water. Researchers caution shrimpers to not place the lights around the rigid-grate bycatch reduction device, or BRD, as it actually decreased the effectiveness of the BRD for eulachon,” the NOAA report reads.

Results were so dramatic, the researchers immediately encouraged all shrimpers to start testing the technique. Within two months nearly every vessel across the border was using the illuminated net method, reporting very large reduction in bycatch of  small demersal fish, but eulachon in particular.

When contacted to ask if the B.C. shrimping industry was planning on adopting a similar bycatch reduction strategy, DFO said they are waiting to see the published results from the Oregon studies but they have had “initial discussions with the B.C. trawl industry and they have expressed an interest in testing this technique. Further discussion is expected.”

Eulachon are of vital importance to the marine ecosystem on the West Coast, and to First Nations. Urgent action needs to be taken to help these stocks recover. And a good start might be as simple as switching on some underwater lights.

Banner Image: Eulachon habitat at Kitamaat Village beach. Photo by Sam Beebe, @sbeebe, CC-BY-2.0