Memoranda to Cabinet - Resources

APPENDIX 7 - CASE STUDY EXAMPLE: OVERABUNDANT SNOW GEESE - CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE (CWS)

Issue

1. What is the issue? Outline the background, magnitude and implications.

The issue is the recent rapid increase in the abundance of snow goose populations, causing negative effects on wildlife habitat. Populations of greater and mid-continent lesser snow geese have risen dramatically in recent decades. The rapid growth is attributed to increased food availability during winter months from agricultural operations, and a declining rate of mortality. As a result, these birds are no longer limited by the carrying capacity of winter habitat, as they were previously. Analysis of the effects of increased numbers of snow geese on staging and arctic breeding habitats shows that unsustainable levels of foraging are adversely affecting the key habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife. Left unchecked, overabundant snow goose populations may become seriously injurious to their own long-term survival and to that of other migratory birds, compromising the biological diversity of the arctic ecosystem.

Ultimately, a number of actions were undertaken, with the goal of protecting and restoring the biological diversity of arctic wetland ecosystems and the ecosystems of important migration and wintering areas. Some actions would require regulatory amendments; and whether, how and when to implement such regulations was controversial. It was determined that to curtail the rapid population growth and reduce population size to a level consistent with the carrying capacity of breeding habitats over a period of about five years, the mortality rate would have to be increased by two to three times the level of the past decade. To this end, beginning in 1999 an amendment to the Migratory Birds Regulations created special conservation measures that permitted hunters to hunt overabundant geese outside the regular hunting season and, in some cases and subject to specific controls, to use special methods and equipment, such as electronic calls and bait, to increase hunter success. Additional management options, such as altered management of refuges, did not require regulatory actions.

 

2. What role do S&T considerations play in the development of policy options?

The key indicator that the growing snow goose population was becoming overabundant was the deterioration of the natural vegetation communities at important staging areas. Research and science advice was basic to the identification of the issue and development of policy options. In this case, we were fortunate to have had 30-plus years of monitoring and research on snow goose populations, including indices to their abundance, survival rates, productivity and other parameters. In addition, an extensive university research program had conducted many years of intensive study of the vegetation communities, and their use by geese, at the important staging area and nesting colony at LaPerouse Bay, Manitoba. This information allowed identification and description of the problem and provided the data needed to develop viable policy options. Scientific evidence for greatly increased snow goose abundance and their negative effects on habitat was critical for credible issue identification. Much of the information had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Potential policy options were identified and evaluated using mathematical population models. The key questions were to determine: (1) whether intervention was required and, if so, (2) the magnitude of population reduction required, and (3) the magnitude that could be achieved under various scenarios.

The results of the modelling exercises indicated that without intervention there would be continuing degradation of natural habitats and related effects on the biological diversity of the ecosystem. The snow goose population would likely decline naturally in the future through poor summer nutrition and increased predation and disease. Natural self-regulation of the population was considered unacceptable because the effects would be felt by all species dependent on those habitats. Initial estimates of the required population reduction were made, and sensitivity analyses showed that reducing adult survival would be the most effective approach.

3. What is the public’s understanding of the scientific background of this issue?

Initially, public understanding of the issue of habitat damage was limited because the key staging habitats and the arctic ecosystem are not directly observable by the majority of citizens. Complex interactions between nesting and staging habitats of highly migratory species in isolated northern environments are not likely to be directly discerned. However, some members of the public did have direct exposure to the effects of the population increase, as they experienced increased crop damage and/or increased birdwatching opportunities.

Throughout the development of our approach to this issue, documents were produced to describe the scientific background. These materials were mailed to more than 700 interested groups and individuals, and made available on government Web sites. This helped the issue to gain substantial media attention (both supportive and critical of the government’s conclusions and actions), including many newspaper and magazine articles and a number of television and radio items. Based on the evidence of correspondence received and local public opinion surveys, the public’s understanding of the scientific basis for the issue increased considerably through the years as a result of the media attention as well as our own dissemination of information.

Awareness of the scientific background of an issue does not, in and of itself, imply agreement with the proposed actions. Some regional public opinion surveys seeking a response to proposed management options found a majority to be in favour of the types of actions ultimately invoked. On the other hand, EC was taken to court by a coalition of animal protection groups opposed to any form of intervention. They disputed the evidence of the extent of habitat damage caused by overabundant goose populations, and the unprecedented numbers of snow geese, and maintained that natural reduction of population size by starvation, disease and predation would be preferable to increased harvest by hunters. The controversial nature of the issue was noted by the federal court judge, who said that he was "pleased to be the judge rather than the responsible Minister" and that "while it was not an easy decision for the Court, it was an even more difficult decision for the Government." The federal court ruled that the Government of Canada does indeed have the authority to make these special regulations, and a subsequent appeal was dropped. The court made note of the scientific evidence and degree of consensus, and ruled that the proposed measures were warranted for snow geese but were "ultra vires" for a similar-looking species because "the case had not been made."

1. Have the scope and implications of the scientific basis for this issue been explored with related disciplines and departments, including social sciences and sources of traditional knowledge?

The other key scientific discipline was agriculture, and advice from experts in this field (provincial and federal) was sought through the stakeholder consultation process described later in this document. In addition, local knowledge was sought from Aboriginal people in affected areas, primarily in Nunavut.

2. What process was used to provide science advice? In-house expertise, external expertise, international expertise, or a combination of the above?

The first serious raising of the issue took place in January 1995 at an International Arctic Goose Conference, where the international scientific community (internal and external to the government) spoke to CWS and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) with one voice on the seriousness of the effect of overabundant snow goose populations on arctic wetland ecosystems.

Following this, CWS convened an international workshop in October 1995 to hear the diversity of scientific opinion. At its conclusion, teams of Canadian and American experts were assembled to develop an assessment of the environmental effects of the rapidly growing populations of snow geese. The group became known as the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group (AGHWG). The experts included population modellers, harvest management biologists, habitat biologists, botanists and goose population experts drawn from government and non-government organizations. The consensus among members of the working groups, all with high standing in the scientific community and extensive experience working on arctic habitats, lent weight to their findings. The working group sought advice from other scientists as needed. Their analyses were published in comprehensive reports entitled Arctic Ecosystems in Peril – Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and The Greater Snow Goose – Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. The teams reported to the (pre-existing) Arctic Goose Joint Venture (AGJV), which in turn made recommendations for action to the two federal governments.¹⁹

Thus, the process used to develop advice relied on long-standing and substantial expertise on the topic in-house as well as on extensive research programs (some very long term) led by Canadian university researchers. U.S. institutions (federal and state governments, academia and natural history museums) are also involved in significant research projects. These efforts (most of them co-operative) are brought together for discussion in the forum provided by the international AGJV, which makes recommendations to the federal governments.

 

3. Was an external, independent body engaged to advise on this issue? What was the rationale for this decision, and what were its conclusions and recommendations?

As described above, the science basis for the issue was developed through the work of the AGHWG, or teams of internal and external scientists representing federal, state and provincial governments, academics and Ducks Unlimited. The reasons for establishing the AGHWG were: (1) to address early in the process the potential for the issue to become politically sensitive, and (2) to include all the recognized experts on the issue, some of whom were external to the government. The mandate of the group was to analyse the environmental effects of the growing goose populations, forecast future growth of the goose populations, and make recommendations about whether intervention was needed, and, if so, evaluate intervention options. The group recommended that intervention was essential for conservation and suggested a number of activities that could be undertaken. The AGHWG and AGJV were not completely independent of government because CWS staff co-chair the AGJV and participate on the AGHWG. However, these groups were composed primarily of non-Canadian federal government agencies, and CWS was a minority partner.

The results were presented to the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management. This body brings together the federal wildlife agencies from the three countries, and serves as the primary group for co-ordination of continental conservation activities. The Trilateral Committee agreed that the snow goose populations were overabundant and that each country should undertake measures to address the problem.

To make decisions in Canada, based on the recommendations for action, two separate sets of additional players were asked for advice: those for whom the issue involved the lesser snow goose, and those for whom the issue was related to the other subspecies, the greater snow goose. In the former case, the jurisdictions involved included the three prairie provinces, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In the latter case, the main players were in Quebec. While CWS retains full responsibility for regulations affecting the take of migratory birds, the provinces and territories and northern co-management boards could also have roles to play, for example, concerning the management of land.

The key partners are the provinces and territories, with whom we practise co-operative management of migratory birds. A federal/provincial/territorial committee (Canadian National Snow Goose Committee) discussed the results of the science analysis, agreed that intervention was required, and considered the various recommendations for management actions. In Quebec, discussions were held with the provincial wildlife and agricultural agencies through the Technical Committee for the Integrated Management of Greater Snow Geese. These agencies also advised that intervention should be undertaken (this committee is discussed further in the following section).

A great range of management activities was examined, ranging from egg collection to culls to comprehensive revisions of agricultural policy on the wintering grounds. Some of the recommended actions were not permitted under the existing Migratory Birds Regulations and so necessitated regulatory amendments. In particular, the decision to reduce the survival of adult snow geese through increased harvest required that regulations be designed that would permit much higher harvest levels than usual, including outside the dates allowed for hunting by the Migratory Birds Convention.

One independent group that was formed to examine the issue was the International Stakeholders’ Committee co-ordinated by the Wildlife Management Institute. Both federal governments were invited to be advisors. The International Stakeholders’ Committee agreed that the issue warranted the types of actions being considered, although one member organization (the U.S. Humane Society) submitted a separate dissenting report at the eleventh hour.

 

1. What measures have been taken to avoid (or manage) potential or real conflicts of interest on the part of the science advisors?

Potential conflicts of interest were avoided by involving science advice from a wide array of recognized experts from a variety of government and non-government organizations. No obvious sources of conflict of interest were apparent, although some critics charged that the experts were in the business of promoting their own research programs to ensure continued funding. A potentially more serious allegation was made by anti-hunting groups: that the majority of people and agencies involved were pro-hunting, and that the management options were thinly veiled attempts to increase hunting opportunities. The allegation did not seem to represent public opinion or garner broad public support.

The scientists and managers in EC are required to divulge any possible conflicts of interest as a requirement of employment and to conduct their personal and professional affairs in such a manner as to avoid perceived or real conflicts of interest.

 

2. What measures have been taken to ensure the quality, integrity and objectivity of the science advice?

The initial identification of the seriousness of the problem came to light as a result of peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals. Since then, quality control has been managed by involving science advice from a wide array of recognized experts. In addition, advice was sought through international fora with numerous organizations represented (the Canada/Mexico/U.S. Trilateral Committee, the AGJV, the U.S. Flyway Councils). The fact that recognized leaders in research on snow goose biology and arctic vegetation ecology were involved, and that many peer-reviewed articles on this topic had been published in the scientific literature, helped ensure quality, integrity and objectivity. Additional scientific articles have been published since the initial decision to intervene; their main conclusions were to agree that the government should act, but they predicted that hunters alone would not be able to harvest sufficient birds.

3. How were science advisors involved in the identification and assessment of policy options, and how was their advice reflected in the options presented to decision makers?

Science advisors were active participants in the scientific assessments of the AGHWG and in the development of the slate of subsequent recommendations. Science advice was discussed at length through the Arctic Goose Joint Venture technical committee and management board. The science advisor developed the briefing materials, which were also reviewed by the scientists. Their advice was central in the options presented to decision makers.

1. What is the nature and degree of the scientific and technological uncertainty and risk related to this issue?

Scientific Uncertainty: The key scientific uncertainties are whether reduction of the populations will lead to recovery of the vegetation communities and, ultimately, to optimum population sizes. Although the consensus is that the current high populations of snow geese are unprecedented, we cannot say with absolute certainty that populations were never before as high; credible scientific information is not available for comparison. Secondary causes of the snow goose population increase, believed to be primarily the recent availability and use of agricultural food resources, are somewhat uncertain; other factors, such as climate warming, could be involved. There is uncertainty about the geographic extent of the habitat damage throughout the arctic.

Scientific Risk: The main point for risk assessment was to evaluate whether intervention should take place. The risk of not taking action was clear: key habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife would continue to be adversely affected by overuse, compromising the biological diversity of the arctic wetland ecosystems and important staging habitats. On the other hand, modelling showed that the risk of going too far in our response (i.e., putting the snow goose population at risk) was extremely small. It was much more likely that we would not be able to achieve the desired population reduction using the preferred approach of increased harvest by hunters.

Technological Uncertainty: The key technological uncertainty is whether increased access by hunters can reduce the snow goose population sufficiently.

Technological Risk: N.A.

2. How was the scientific and technological uncertainty dealt with in formulating policy options?

The key uncertainties are whether increased access by hunters can reduce the snow goose population sufficiently, whether reduction of the populations will lead to recovery of the vegetation communities and, finally, the ultimate optimum population sizes.

Uncertainties were dealt with by soliciting expert advice and by designing scientific monitoring and evaluation plans. To ensure adequate evaluation, a stepped-up regularized population and habitat monitoring program was formulated. This program has been implemented, although not to the extent recommended because of a shortage of resources. Also, the measures to control the snow goose population were implemented with the thinking that they would be temporary measures, thus requiring future monitoring and evaluation to know when to cease those activities.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, it was felt that we needed to immediately begin to implement methods to reduce the populations. Modelling had shown that we could not exceed the target mortality and that the risk of not acting was greater. In the meantime, scientific work would continue to provide continuous data for evaluation of the methods being implemented. To address our uncertainty about being able to achieve sufficient population reduction, and for possible changes in direction, new international working groups were set up to examine: (1) options for non-lethal population control, (2) control through landscape modification, and (3) methods to cull the populations.

3. How was the government’s Integrated Risk Management Framework applied in addressing this issue?

The Framework did not yet exist when the initial science and policy options were being formulated in 1995-1999. However, after comparison of the CWS approach with the 2001 Integrated Risk Management Framework, it appears that the key elements involved in practising integrated risk management were covered. There was a clear assessment of the relative risks of different approaches (i.e., intervening vs. not intervening); the risks were compared and the most acceptable approach selected; actions were implemented and an evaluation plan is underway to measure the effects of the actions; and there is a clearly framed schedule for re-evaluating earlier decisions. CWS did not make these decisions in isolation, but engaged a broad stakeholder community as well as the public in general.

1. Was an existing or representative set of stakeholders selected to comment on the development of policy options? How was this group chosen?

In Quebec, the environmental effects of growing snow goose populations have been more obviously in the public eye. This is because the entire population of greater snow geese stages in the St. Lawrence River Valley during the spring and fall migration. The area has become an important destination for birdwatchers and supports a booming tourist industry. At the same time, the farmers in the area have suffered economic losses due to crop damage caused by the migrating geese. In December 1996, the Technical Committee for the Integrated Management of Greater Snow Geese was established, and since then it has served as the forum for evaluation of policy options. CWS invited an inclusive set of representatives of stakeholders with divergent interests, including farmers and agricultural organizations, hunters, birdwatchers and other conservation groups, and agricultural and wildlife representatives of both governments. Working together for more than five years, the Committee developed an action plan for management of greater snow geese and considered the recommendations made by the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Special conservation measures to control the population growth, including increases to the harvest rate and use of electronic calls and bait under permit, were unanimously accepted, with the proviso that certain rural communities, where birdwatching tourism is very important, would be avoided. The proposed approach was also considered by the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Co-ordinating Committee, which co-ordinates wildlife conservation activities related to the Aboriginal people of northern Quebec. The regulations were first implemented in the spring of 1999.

A different approach was taken in western Canada, through which the mid-continent lesser snow goose population migrates. There the effects of the overabundance of snow geese are limited to remote areas and are not apparent to residents. There was no formation of a stakeholder group per se; instead, bilateral consultations were undertaken with individual groups throughout the winter of 1998. For example, input was solicited from each of three prairie wildlife federations (non-government organizations) through their annual conventions and through the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Board, the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation Board and the Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan Board. Detailed discussions with the Wildlife Advisory Committee of the Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management Department were undertaken throughout 2000. CWS also consulted with the Board of Directors of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM). After these stakeholders expressed support, Manitoba endorsed the proposal to implement special conservation measures, beginning in the spring of 1999, and Saskatchewan followed in 2001. Similarly, CWS consulted with regional Inuit organizations (Kitikmeot Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Keewatin Wildlife Federation and Qikiqtalluuk Wildlife Board) over a number of years. Based on the support of these organizations, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board approved the CWS proposal to implement special conservation measures to begin in the spring of 2001.

The involvement of Canadian non-government organizations was also encouraged in an International Stakeholders’ Committee assembled by the Wildlife Management Institute for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Inuvialuit Wildlife Management Board and the Canadian Wildlife Federation sat on the committee. With one exception (the U.S. Humane Society), the committee was unanimous on the need for intervention.

Stakeholders and the public were informed through the consultation processes described elsewhere in this document. The main message was that the risk of wrongly not acting was high, but the risk of wrongly acting was much lower. Thus, the details about uncertainties were not emphasized, as they were considered secondary to the primary issue of management matters. There was consensus about the latter and little uncertainty and risk. Overemphasis on scientific uncertainty can erode public support because scientific certainty is such an elusive quality; instead, proceeding on the basis of best available knowledge and building in mechanisms to learn and adapt were recognized as best practice.

See discussions of various fora above.

The key policy options were: (1) whether to intervene and, if so, (2) how best to reduce the population sizes. To reach those not participating directly in stakeholder committees, we drew upon the formalized process developed for annual consultations on hunting regulations. The first description of the issue and possible need for intervention was presented in the 1995 Report on the Status of Migratory Game Birds in Canada. The issue was further developed in subsequent issues (1996 through 2001) of this annual report, released each November. Specific alternatives were fully described in the annual December Reports on Proposals for Modifications to the Migratory Birds Regulations (1997 through 2001). Information was also provided in the July 1998, 1999 and 2000 reports Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations in Canada. These documents are distributed to approximately 700 federal, provincial and state governments, Aboriginal and non-government organizations, and hunting and conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Nature Federation, and Nature Conservancy of Canada. The documents are also posted on the CWS Web site, following a Notice of Intent being published in the Canada Gazette.

The federal court’s review concluded that the Government of Canada had prepared the special regulations through a "significant, protracted period of development, extensive consultations and opportunity for input."

3. What public consultation was undertaken on the policy options? How have stakeholder views and public concerns been taken into consideration?

Same as above.

1. What tools and mechanisms are in place for monitoring, measuring and reporting on the scientific implications of the policy?

Now that a program for snow goose population reduction is underway, there are continuing important and costly requirements related to evaluation of progress and reassessment of objectives. A review of science needs was prepared by the AGHWG, from which the highest-priority studies are in progress. The needs identified included surveys of population abundance and distribution, marking programs to evaluate mortality parameters (harvest rates tied to specific colonies), improved estimates of harvest, extensive and intensive surveys of habitat and vegetation communities, and surveys of the effects on other birds and wildlife. However, funding is insufficient to support all the work that should be done to track the scientific implications of the policy implementation – the tradeoff has been to focus on the "indicator" (goose numbers) more than on the "effect" (plant communities). The study results are reported back to the Arctic Goose Joint Venture for continual re-evaluation of population objectives and progress toward those goals. The results are also presented to the public through the annual consultation process and the existing stakeholder groups.

2. What are the provisions for a review of the science and the decisions (based on a set time period or on significant changes in the science or policy)?

Reviews of new contributions to the science background and progress toward the goal, as well as re-evaluation of the goal, take place annually. This schedule is established partly because of the annual requirement to promulgate regulations (Migratory Birds Regulations under the Migratory Birds Conservation Act) allowing special conservation measures for hunters to take birds outside the hunting season. Also, see above for a discussion of how the measures demand an evaluation procedure and process because they are temporary in scope.

[ Previous ] [ Table of Contents ] [ Next ]