Science Advisory Report 2022/055

Science advice for assessing cumulative effects in support of policy development and regulatory decision-making

Summary

• Consideration of Cumulative Effects (CE) requires an ecosystem-level perspective including knowledge of ecosystem integrity (composition, structure, and function), this advice should be interpreted in this context.
• How CE considerations fit into the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program’s (FFHPP) management cycle was reviewed with respect to two specific areas: 1) integrated planning and 2) fish and fish habitat decision-making, in addition this advisory meeting focused on freshwater ecosystems.
• IP should inform FFHPP decision-making and vice versa. This is essential to the consideration of CE by ensuring structured information flow between IP (e.g., state, thresholds, the conservation, protection, and restoration needs of systems, etc.) and changes to FFHPP decision-making depending on that state.  Information from FFHPP to IP helps capture vital information on activities and cumulative effects and residual pressures.
• Integrated planning is generally considered a policy driven process to establish objectives that may include ecosystem, cultural, social, and economic components, DFO Science focus was on the ecosystem components required.
• The information requirements should be informed by the best available knowledge that includes a solid understanding of the status of fish and fish habitat in the area under consideration.
• CE considerations need assessment of past pressures (included in the status of above) as well as an assessment of the potential effects of current and foreseeable pressures on the fish and fish habitat.
• One of the main ways to consider CE in an Integrated Plan is to set objectives and targets that consider the relationships among fish, people, and the environment. These goals and targets can be policy based but should be measurable and based on the best available information.
• Objectives and targets of an IP should include agreed upon indicators with defined thresholds or ranges. Thresholds and ranges can be directly measured and could also be determined by modelling and scenario planning, or be based on Indigenous knowledge of relationships and natural conditions.
• Indicators should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-based (SMART) as well as sensitive and responsive to anticipated management measures, in order to provide timely feedback such that management measures can be tested for effectiveness.
• CE within fish and fish habitat decision-making requires information about: (1) the proposed Work, Undertaking or Activity (WUA), (2) the species in the region, and (3) the habitats in the region.
• Specifically, there needs to be a clear determination of the ’zone of influence’ related to the WUA both from a spatial and temporal perspective. The expected pressures from the WUA needs to be understood and the current status of the habitat needs to be evaluated.
• Information on reference conditions (near pristine or prior to previous impacts) are important to document as accurately and comprehensively (e.g., broad spatial-temporal scales) as possible to predict the vulnerability of the fish and fish habitat to CE.
• Information on the species should include: presence/absence, life history characteristics/needs, general population status and sensitivity to the expected pressures for all species in the ‘zone of influence’.
• A trait based approach to consistently determine the expected presence of species in the ‘zone of influence’ was presented for data limited situations, it could also be used as a check in more data rich areas.
• Existing scientifically defensible methods (e.g., Habitat Ecosystem Assessment Tool-HEAT) and/or equivalency models can provide a means of determining the species within the ‘zone of influence’ and effects of proposed WUAs on habitat.
• Habitat information should include: the habitats present, the general habitat status and an evaluation of the habitat vulnerability (sensitivity and exposure) to the expected pressures within the ‘zone of influence’.
• Habitat sensitivity is defined based on a combination of resilience and resistance to a particular pressure and is separate from the exposure of the habitat to the pressure from a proposed WUA. In a CE context, current habitat sensitivity is influenced by exposure to previous pressures in the watershed, as sensitivity is an intrinsic property of the ecosystem that may vary depending on the habitat status.
• Outside of management and operational uncertainties regarding the WUA and the effectiveness of the measures (SAR 2014/015), it is understood that habitat and fish distributions are dynamic and can/will change due to natural and anthropogenic forces, this is one of the reasons a broader spatial and temporal scope is required for the consideration of CE.
• The knowledge and uncertainty associated with the impacts of activities on species and habitats are complicated in considerations of CE because of interactions between pressures (additive, antagonistic, and synergistic), non-linearities, thresholds and tipping points, on top of existing challenges of accurate measurement in ecological settings.
• A standardized approach to better understand the state of fish and fish habitat within the context of natural and anthropogenic spatial-temporal variation of the ecosystem is required to inform project reviews. This approach/database would ideally track projects across Canada as one means to measure the pressure footprint within watersheds resulting from anthropogenic activities. 
• There is a need for a national geospatial database with available information on species, habitats, and the CE landscape so assessors can evaluate if the information they have is correct and sufficient. While this database may not contain all the needed information, it would provide a centralized access point that could allow planners, assessors, scientists and proponents to be working from shared resources.

This Science Advisory Report is from the March 8-12, 2021 National Peer Review on Science advice for assessing cumulative effects in support of policy development and regulatory decision making. Additional publications from this meeting will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.

Science Advisory Report 2022/055 (PDF, 729 KB)

Accessibility Notice

This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.