PRACTICING PRECAUTION and ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

are that: (1) registration and re-evaluation decisions must be accompanied by an explicit andunambiguous statement of what are considered unacceptable effects arising from pesticide use;(2) there must be systematic monitoring of effects of product use, where and when they areapplied, and such monitoring must be designed in such a way as to maximize the detection ofunacceptable effects; (3) there must be regular reviews of previous decisions; (4) there must existthe statutory authority to revoke or amend previous decisions on re-evaluation; and (5) theremust be a systematic procedure for incorporating information from past decisions into currentevaluations. Our research indicates that while currently, conditions (3) and (4) are met,conditions (1) and (2) are not. Pesticide regulation in Canada will not, therefore, be trulyadaptive until regulatory decisions are formally treated as scientific hypotheses through thespecification of both acceptable and unacceptable effects; a systematic post-registration effectsand exposure monitoring system is developed, including an appropriate electronic registry anddatabase; and a clear, well-defined protocol is implemented whereby new scientific andregulatory information is systematically assimilated, assessed, and integrated directly into thedecision process in a timely fashion.Setting TACs in the 4X5Y cod and haddock fisheries.Dan E. LaneThis case study explores the practice of setting Total Allowable Catches (TACs) in AtlanticCanada and examines how precaution is practised in setting TACs for the groundfish stocks ofcod and haddock in the management area of southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy(NAFO Divisions 4X and 5Y) in 2002 and 2003.The historical procedures of TAC-setting are presented including the changes that tookplace in recent years in reaction to the collapse of the Northern cod stock in 1992. In 1993, amore transparent process for recommending advice on TACs to the Minister of Fisheries andOceans was inaugurated. This new process established an intermediary consultative groupknown as the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council (FRCC). The FRCC was a partnershipbetween government, the scientific community, and the stakeholders in the fishery. Its missionwas to review stock assessments contained in annual science-based Stock Status Reports (SSRs)together with other relevant information, and to recommend to the Minister TACs and otherconservation measures, including some idea of the level of risk and uncertainty associated withthese recommendations.The 2002 and 2003 TAC process - Cod experienced a small increase in estimated biomasssince 1999 however, the year-over-year increases were small and fishing mortality estimatesremained high despite restrictive quotas since the mid-1990s. In contrast, the estimates from thehaddock stock were highly optimistic-the haddock stock was estimated to be growing since 1990and estimates exceeded the stock thresholds. The “retrospective analysis” examined the fit of theVirtual Population Analysis (VPA) model to the data, and the “risk analysis” incorporated datavariability with the impact on the range of TAC values under expected exploitation rates. In 2002and 2003, both cod and haddock exhibited a “retrospective pattern” whereby biomass estimatestended to be over-estimates in the most recent year. The risk analyses for haddock in the 2002and 2003 exhibited steep curves indicating robust estimates. Risk analyses were not provided forcod, in either 2002 or 2003. In 2002, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided that the‘status quo’ would be applied to the cod and haddock TACs compatible with the FRCCrecommendations. In 2003, the Minister adopted the FRCC recommendations for haddock andExecutive Summary A-6
increased the TAC. However, for cod, the Minister allocated a status quo harvest for 2003 inspite of the concerns of the FRCC.The TAC decision for the two stocks demonstrates that precaution and adaptivemanagement are present as quantitative measures as well as qualitative descriptions. However,evidence from the cod and haddock TAC decisions in 2002 and 2003 suggest that the process forapplying precaution and adaptive management are not fully consistent and therefore not easilycomparable. The decision to maintain the haddock TAC in 2002 despite the stock’s growth isqualitatively precautionary. However, if these same qualitative interpretations were applied tocod, then more precautionary decisions could have been taken to reduce the cod TAC in 2003.It is understood that precaution with respect to other dimensions of the decision (e.g.,socioeconomic or administrative) may take precedence over resource sustainability. However, itis required that formal analyses for these other dimensions be specified. Other recommendationsinclude: standardizing the minimal scientific content for stock estimation; involving stakeholdersin the collection of data and in the development of estimates to improve their ownership in theprocess; providing a unified fisheries system analysis that would link all stocks of the mixedfishery in a joint stock status analysis; extending authority to fisheries stakeholders for strategicTAC decisions and reducing the ultimate authority of the DFO Minister for these stock-by-stockannual decisions.COMMENTARY AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONSIn considering policy conclusions, the limited number of case studies and the tentative nature ofthe statistical analysis must be acknowledged. Nonetheless, it is clear from this inquiry thatprecaution and adaptive management are principles whose application is intimately connectedwith values. The most frequently recurring theme in the literature on precaution, in analyses ofadministrative goals and structures, and in the case studies, is that both administrative law andthe principles of precaution and adaptive management do have, and must have, underlying valuesor priorities which support their implementation. These values not only determine goals, but alsoappropriate means for achieving them.The case studies and Workshop also indicated that the values which drive theinterpretation and application of precautionary and adaptive management may vary from onegovernment department to another. For example, the GM Plants study found that, “since…adverse outcomes are to be delayed rather than avoided altogether, it seems that a decision hasbeen taken that they are to be tolerated.” This is also evident in the Forest Pests study, where theauthors observe how much easier it is to encourage precaution when seeking to protect theeconomy rather than the environment.The studies also suggest variability in the manner in which precaution and adaptivemanagement are implemented and applied. There is variation in the definitions andinterpretations of the principles, as well as in the kinds of risks, and the kinds of uncertaintyabout these risks, that decision makers face. This means that, although the appropriatemechanisms for implementing precaution and adaptive management must meet the requirementsof administrative fairness, the mechanisms for doing so will vary between institutions, andaccording to the nature of the risk and of the uncertainty involved.The lack of uniformity, as demonstrated in several of the case studies, points towards theimportance of increased specificity in granting, exercising and assessing precautionary andadaptive exercises of power. This specificity is necessary if judges in the context of judicialExecutive Summary A-7
Page 1 and 2: PRACTICING PRECAUTION and ADAPTIVE
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPracticing Precauti
Page 5 and 6: A- EXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONWit
Page 7 and 8: This study must be considered as an
Page 9: The regulatory scheme does not expl
Page 13 and 14: B - INTRODUCTION: UNCERTAINTY, PREC
Page 15 and 16: mechanisms of participation, such a
Page 17 and 18: Some causes of uncertainty are more
Page 19 and 20: The distinction between principle a
Page 21 and 22: estimates serve as a notional bench
Page 23 and 24: 1 As Jonathan Wiener emphasizes, re
Page 25 and 26: C- RESEARCH METHODOLOGYEVALUATING I
Page 27 and 28: questionnaire: for each concept, th
Page 29 and 30: D-2
Page 31 and 32: Nathalie Chalifour & Yves Prévost
Page 33 and 34: III.B.4. Principe 4.4 Il devrait y
Page 35 and 36: Le Canada a aussi des obligations e
Page 37 and 38: En septembre 2001, le gouvernement
Page 39 and 40: données de l’ACIA. Le Service ca
Page 41 and 42: II.B. Les NIMP 2 et les ARP’s de
Page 43 and 44: L’AF se qualifie comme OQ, car l
Page 45 and 46: II.C. Les règlements additionnels
Page 47 and 48: II.C.1e. Règlement sur l’indemni
Page 49 and 50: II.C.2d. Règlement sur l’indemni
Page 51 and 52: défi est donc de savoir quand s’
Page 53 and 54: III.B.3. Principe 4.3 L’applicati
Page 55 and 56: arrivent aux ports canadiens tous l
Page 57 and 58: VI. ANNEXE I. ABRÉVIATIONSACIAAgen
Page 59 and 60: 29 Kai N. Lee, « Appraising Adapti
Page 61 and 62:
D-34
Page 63 and 64:
Jennifer A. Chandler - The Regulati
Page 65 and 66:
Jennifer A. Chandler - The Regulati
Page 67 and 68:
As a result, a new plant is exempt
Page 69 and 70:
decision-maker “shall” refuse t
Page 71 and 72:
the intermediate situation, proof o
Page 73 and 74:
data and relevant scientific inform
Page 75 and 76:
The PBO has already anticipated the
Page 77 and 78:
As noted earlier, the environmental
Page 79 and 80:
Biosafety Office (PBO). The plants
Page 81 and 82:
In the judgment of the Expert Panel
Page 83 and 84:
espect to the test data submitted a
Page 85 and 86:
40 These are (1) the potential of t
Page 87 and 88:
93 Ibid.94 Directive 94-08, supra n
Page 89 and 90:
C. Scott Findlay & Annik Déziel -
Page 91 and 92:
C. Scott Findlay & Annik Déziel -
Page 93 and 94:
III. A BRIEF HISTORY OF PESTICIDE R
Page 95 and 96:
into account its conditions or prop
Page 97 and 98:
manner representative of the route,
Page 99 and 100:
Precisely how the various uncertain
Page 101 and 102:
In the past, special reviews have b
Page 103 and 104:
VIII.C. Is PMRA practicing precauti
Page 105 and 106:
From these considerations, the mini
Page 107 and 108:
effects of decisions are systematic
Page 109 and 110:
eported. Note furthermore that this
Page 111 and 112:
Pest Management Regulatory Agency (
Page 113 and 114:
Dan E. Lane - Setting TACs in the 4
Page 115 and 116:
LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Stock Status
Page 117 and 118:
Environment). As it expanded, Canad
Page 119 and 120:
3) FRCC prepare TAC recommendations
Page 121 and 122:
4) The Minister’s Final DecisionB
Page 123 and 124:
7) Outlook - highlights of the abun
Page 125 and 126:
ultimate authority for all access a
Page 127 and 128:
II. CASE STUDYII.A. Setting TACs in
Page 129 and 130:
Scotian Shelf. Approximately 50% of
Page 131 and 132:
The prognoses of the stocks for 200
Page 133 and 134:
F0.1, used as the benchmark rate, m
Page 135 and 136:
Sources ofUncertaintyAge Structure:
Page 137 and 138:
Sources ofUncertaintyPrincipal sour
Page 139 and 140:
OutlookIndicators of Abundance:Indi
Page 141 and 142:
ManagementConsiderationsEcosystemCo
Page 143 and 144:
constructed on the basis of the wei
Page 145 and 146:
expected growth in the stock, and t
Page 147 and 148:
IV. RECOMMENDATIONSIV.A. Case study
Page 149 and 150:
V. REFERENCESCanada 2005. A Framewo
Page 151 and 152:
Hutchings, J.A. 1996. Spatial and t
Page 153 and 154:
VI. APPENDIX AStock Status Report D
Page 155 and 156:
VII. Appendix B2002 and 2003 Docume
Page 157 and 158:
Sources of UncertaintyOutlookSPA -
Page 159 and 160:
E- COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS OF RESEA
Page 161 and 162:
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH
Page 163 and 164:
TABLE OF CONTENTSI. PRACTICING PREC
Page 165 and 166:
I. PRACTICING PRECAUTION - EXPLORAT
Page 167 and 168:
Table 3: Questions with missing dat
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 1. The raw data from the que
Page 171 and 172:
Figure 4. S(n) versus n for Part II
Page 173 and 174:
I.F.2. Approach #2 (dimension reduc
Page 175 and 176:
Data reduction to 2 variablesII_220
Page 177 and 178:
I_1210-1-21pest 2fish 3gmo 4frstcas
Page 179 and 180:
II. PRACTICING PRECAUTION EXPLORATO
Page 181 and 182:
II.C. GoalsThe goal of this examina
Page 183 and 184:
Figures 16, 17, and 18 do not contr
Page 185 and 186:
Conclusions & Summary F-2
Page 187 and 188:
Conclusions & Summary F-4
Page 189 and 190:
one government department to anothe
Page 191 and 192:
involves the scrutiny of procedural
Page 193 and 194:
can assess the risks inherent in a
Page 195 and 196:
entrenched in the treaties and legi
Page 197 and 198:
III. REFORM POSSIBILITIESFactoring
Page 199 and 200:
ased decision-making. Finally, thes
Page 201 and 202:
The answers will depend on context,
Page 203 and 204:
ased on the administrative principl
Page 205 and 206:
decisions must maintain the adminis
Page 207 and 208:
Potential Future WorkAmong the many
Page 209 and 210:
On the South Australia Environment,
Page 211 and 212:
G - APPENDICES:i. Document Question
Page 213 and 214:
Practicing PrecautionTo which case
Page 215 and 216:
10) The following is a list of "pre
Page 217 and 218:
15) There are many different source
Page 219 and 220:
• Decisions are treated as scient
Page 221 and 222:
Revised February 25, 2005PRACTICING
Page 223 and 224:
II.1. Does the legislation constitu
Page 225 and 226:
III.2.a Does the legislation contai
Page 227 and 228:
III.8.i “endangered”III.8.j “
Page 229 and 230:
III.13.a Uncertainty about effects
Page 231 and 232:
IV.5.g Monitoring is conducted by t
Page 233 and 234:
V.7.Do decision-makers have access
Page 235 and 236:
iii. WORKSHOP SUMMARY“Precaution,
Page 237 and 238:
science, to Type I and Type II erro
Page 239 and 240:
iv. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTSMARCH 8 th
Page 241 and 242:
NATHALIE DES ROSIERS613-562-5902nat
Page 243:
Mike WilsonDirector, Strategic Issu
show all

PRACTICING PRECAUTION and ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?