Engagement on the science-based whale review

A summary of what was heard
March 2018

Engagement on the Science-based Whale Review
A Summary of What was Heard

Prepared by the consortium of Nielsen, Delaney + Associates, PubliVate.
Contract #: FP918-17-0001

Ce document est également disponible en français.

Table of Contents

• Complete Text
• 1. Executive Summary
• 2. Project Background
• 3. Summary of Engagement Strategy
  • 3.1 Targeted Input
  • 3.2 Open Public Engagement
• 4. Summary of What We Heard
  • 4.1 Who Did We Hear From?
  • 4.2 Understanding the Findings
  • 4.3 How the Following Sections are Organized
• 5. Prey Availability
  • 5.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 5.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 5.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 5.4 What the General Public Said
• 6. Entanglements
  • 6.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 6.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 6.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 6.4 What the General Public Said
• 7. Acoustic Disturbance and Vessel Presence
  • 7.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 7.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 7.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 7.4 What the General Public Said
• 8. Vessel Strikes
  • 8.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 8.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 8.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 8.4 What the General Public Said
• 9. Contaminants
  • 9.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 9.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 9.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 9.4 What the General Public Said
• 10. Conclusions - Readiness to Move Actions Forward
  • 10.1 Common Themes across All Threats
  • 10.2 Roles and Leadership
  • 10.3 Improved Coordination and Communication
  • 10.4 Future Engagement and Consultation
  • 10.5 Region-specific Actions
• 11. Appendices
  • Appendix A: Who We Heard From
  • Appendix B. Profile of Respondents – Let’s Talk Whales Online Engagement
  • Appendix C: Engagement Questions

10. Conclusions - Readiness to Move Actions Forward

Without exception, all who provided input said they were committed to collaborating with the Government of Canada and others to advance recovery of the three endangered whale populations. This includes those who had expressed frustration during the summer engagement process. ^{Footnote 54}

10.1 Common Themes across All Threats

Participants agreed it is essential to take prompt action to improve recovery efforts for the three endangered whale populations and to mitigate the threats of reduced prey availability, entanglements, acoustic disturbance and vessel presence, vessel strikes, and contaminants.

Everyone who provided input at in person/webinar meetings said that governments should work with and support collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve governments, Indigenous groups, industry, scientists and other stakeholders. Where possible, future engagement or consultations should be stream-lined and tap into these existing collaborations.

Suggestions for setting priorities and implementing actions included:

• Integrate Species at Risk Act, Oceans Protection Plan and the Science-Based Whale Review processes;
• Give stronger recognition to work done to date by all levels of government and non-government actors, and leverage it to enhance whale recovery;
• Build on existing/in progress Species at Risk Act recovery documents, leveraging regional research, mitigation activities and collaborative partnerships already in place;
• Identify tangible, quantifiable and measurable actions to guide implementation, with clear time lines for each;
• Ensure clear leadership and accountability for moving actions forward;
• Improve coordination and collaboration across implicated federal government departments/agencies, jurisdictions (federal, provincial, municipal) and partners;
• Engage governments, Indigenous groups, stakeholder groups and Canadians in a way that optimizes expertise and mobilizes collective action, including:
  • The application of traditional ecological knowledge;
  • The technical knowledge of other disciplines, e.g., ecology, marine transportation engineering, etc.

Indigenous participants felt strongly that the process to develop and implement priority management actions should:

• Ensure consultation with Indigenous peoples, both on-reserve and off-reserve, in a clearly defined manner, with commentary encouraged, information provided about the adoption of scientific recommendations by government fisheries management, and financial resources available to support full participation;
• Recognize that Indigenous peoples are actively fishing for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, as well as conducting Aboriginal Communal Commercial Fisheries where the three endangered whale populations frequent;
• Ensure timely and transparent communications with Indigenous communities and fishers to enable partnering to address threats to the endangered whale populations.

Differing Opinions:

There were differences in what people viewed as the most critical actions to help recovery of the three endangered whale populations. Key differences centered on the strength of the scientific evidence supporting the proposed actions, which actions should be highest priority, the timelines for implementation, and the extent to which existing legislation, regulations, monitoring and enforcement are adequate to support proposed actions.

Some participants felt that current evidence, along with the urgency to act, provided a clear enough path to guide immediate action, without delay.

• The message of urgency was strongest from Indigenous groups and environmental non-governmental organizations who participated in meetings and many participants from the general public who provided input through the Let's Talk Whales online engagement. 
• Although all who held this view supported a less-rushed and more engaged process, they believed it crucial to move beyond planning to immediate action based on the currently available evidence. 
• Delay is not seen as an option given the known threats and the small number of whales in each of the three endangered whale populations. Where there are gaps in evidence, the precautionary principle is suggested to prevent irreversible damage to the population.

Other participants felt that more definitive scientific evidence, e.g., impacts of acoustic disturbance on whales, and further analysis and deeper engagement of all parties is needed to better inform moving forward with some priority management actions, particularly regulatory approaches.

• The message of "take time" to gather more scientific evidence was strongest from groups representing industry/business and centered on the importance of taking actions that would be effective at achieving objectives. 
• People expressed concern about using a prioritization process based solely on scientific evidence, without consideration of the impact of actions on safety, operations, and economic viability (e.g., commercial shipping, tourism, ^{Footnote 55} marine transportation). 
• People also questioned the validity of some conclusions of the Phase 1 science assessment reports and requested an opportunity to review the supporting scientific evidence. A small proportion of people who responded through the online public engagement shared similar views.

Another difference of opinion centered on the approach to regulation, monitoring, and enforcement.

• Some industry/business groups are already taking voluntary action. Some participants suggested that existing legislative and regulatory frameworks are adequate and preferred the approach of working together through existing collaborative processes. 
• However, others felt that voluntary measures were not sufficient and that governments could:
  1. do more to enforce existing regulations that support whale recovery;
  2. allocate additional resources to support stronger monitoring and enforcement; and/or
  3. strengthen legislation or regulations to improve protection.

10.2 Roles and Leadership

The nature of the engagement process did not lend itself to the clear identification of roles in implementation or identification of leads for specific priority management actions. However, there was a clear expectation that the Government of Canada would:

• Have a strong leadership role in convening and collaborating with all levels of government, Indigenous groups, and stakeholders to develop priorities for action and regional implementation plans;
• Build on current efforts and recovery measures already identified, underway, and in development;
• Use a robust framework to guide engagement of all parties in legislative, regulatory and policy measures within federal jurisdiction to support recovery actions for the three endangered whale populations;
• Strengthen and formalize United States-Canada transboundary collaboration and cooperation to address shared concerns: across the Fisheries and Oceans Canada and United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and more broadly, to include additional groups and governments.
• Collaborate with provincial and municipal levels of government to address actions in areas of shared jurisdiction.

10.3 Improved Coordination and Communication

There was a strong message to increase coordination and communication to leverage efforts, avoid duplication and stream-line engagement and consultation processes:

• Across federal departments (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada,);
• Across jurisdictional levels;
• Between governments, Indigenous groups, industry, and other stakeholders involved or impacted by recovery efforts for the three endangered whale populations.

Specific suggested mechanisms included:

• Develop a more cohesive horizontal approach across Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada with clear, harmonized mandates;
• Create new structured mechanisms for information sharing and communication across departments, agencies, and organizations or groups involved in moving forward priority management actions addressing the threat areas;
• Have all involved government departments present when priority management actions are reviewed and prioritized; and
• Centralize available scientific and technical information pertinent to each of the threat areas (specific mention for information related to underwater noise).

10.4 Future Engagement and Consultation

There was no single preferred format of engagement among participants, with in person and webinar both identified among the preferred options. Similarly, some indicated a preference for working through existing tables while others did not.

Participants identified a range of others who should be at those tables moving forward on priority management actions to enhance recovery for each of the three endangered whale populations, including:

• Technical experts in marine safety and navigation;
• Whale-watching industry representatives; and
• The Canadian Coast Guard.

And they indicated a strong interest in engagement to advance the identification, planning and implementation of Marine Protected Areas.

Where possible, federal departments should work with and support existing collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve governments, Indigenous groups, industry, scientists and other stakeholders, tapping into these established networks and partnerships for future engagement and consultations. Regional stakeholders/groups should be involved in planning the engagement approach to ensure strong linkages with existing networks/partnerships and feasible timelines and logistics for all involved.

Indigenous participants requested that future engagement/consultation:

• Use a more cohesive and coordinated approach across Ministries that looks at cumulative effects and the whale ecosystem rather than a narrow approach focused on a small set of priority actions; and
• Offer financial support in order to encourage full participation of Indigenous groups in engagement activities.

Pertinent scientific analysis and reports developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be available to all parties well in advance and presented in a clear format that links priority management actions to the supporting evidence. In addition, engagement should continue to build on work that has already been done and plan to integrate important inputs that can inform discussion, such as Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat reviews.

10.5 Region-specific Actions

Participants suggested the following regional actions that could be moved forward in the near term:

Pacific Region (Comments on the Southern Resident Killer Whale)

• Create an Interagency Working Group on contaminants. Both the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment have expressed interest in participating;
• Create a transboundary working group to support actions that address acoustic and physical disturbance and prey availability;
• Conduct a mapping and inventory exercise to help identify agencies and current initiatives and individuals already involved in recovery actions, particularly in the areas of:
  • contaminants - where capacity and infrastructure is limited with respect to monitoring and impacts on marine mammals; and
  • oil spill response – where clear protocols and timely, inclusive communication is crucial to mobilize response.
• Collaborate with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority's ECHO program.
• Be inclusive of smaller First Nations with limited capacity, including coastal and Fraser River communities;
• Involve the following stakeholders in moving forward on priority management actions:
  • Regional and municipal representatives, including wastewater facility managers (Metro Vancouver Regional District was specifically mentioned);
  • Provincial representatives responsible for marinas and technical staff from British Columbia Ministry of Environment;
  • Infrastructure Canada;
  • Vancouver Aquarium;
  • Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (re: oil spill response);
  • United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington's Department of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology (for any transboundary working groups);
  • Site managers for the Federal Contaminated Action Plan sites;
  • Local groups involved in protection efforts, e.g., local stream keepers groups.

Québec and Maritime Regions (Comments on the North Atlantic Right Whale)

• Develop a strong plan of action with the support of those most greatly affected, including fishers, Indigenous communities, and key groups active in waters used by North Atlantic Right Whales, to address threats of entanglement, vessel strikes, and acoustic disturbance.
• Collaborate with non-governmental organizations, universities and other government agencies to integrate existing monitoring projects into one comprehensive program for North Atlantic Right Whale monitoring in Atlantic Canada.
• Engage fishers in the conversation about possible fishery closures and other actions to reduce the threat of entanglement, using plain language that clearly identifies the processes behind the science recommendations that informs management decisions.
• Engage Indigenous groups, fishers, the commercial fishing industry, and universities in testing new gear modifications.
• Conduct engagement and further analysis to support the development of proposals to the International Maritime Organization to:
  • Amend commercial shipping lanes in the Grand Manan Basin critical habitat;
  • Amend current Areas to Be Avoided by vessels in the Roseway Basin critical habitat from recommended to mandatory.
• In collaboration with partners, increase communication with vessel operators (commercial ships; fishing, enforcement, and military vessels) transiting the Areas to be Avoided in the Roseway Basin critical habitat to increase compliance with current recommendations;
• Work with partners to enhance response to whale entanglement, and extend coverage to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Québec and Atlantic waters.

Québec Region (Comments on the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga)

• Take into account the industry feedback already provided to the Government of Canada on the economic, practical and operational impacts of priority management actions (as part of consultations in 2016 and 2017 to develop a multi-species action plan to reduce the impact of underwater noise, including on the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga population);^{Footnote 56}
• Work within existing structures and agreements with the province of Québec's Ministry of Transportation to build on the work of established multi-stakeholder groups on reducing the threats of underwater noise and vessel strikes to the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga population.

In conclusion, strong commitment and collaboration are required to reduce the threats to each of the three endangered whale populations and support recovery. The way forward is emerging through research and engagement but concrete actions must be implemented to support recovery of these populations.