| |
| In einer politisch motivierten Entscheidung hat die kanadische Regierung am 19. April den bisherigen Schutzstatus der Population der nordpazifischen Buckelwale zugunsten von Industrieinteressen reduziert. Bislang galten die Buckelwale nach dem kanadischen Artenschutzgesetz (Species At Risk Act, SARA) als „bedroht“ (threatened), jetzt gelten sie nur noch als „gefährdet“ (species of special concern). Die Aufhebung des bisherigen strengen Schutzstatus hat weitreichende negative Folgen für die Buckelwale. Für die nach dem Species At Risk Act als bedroht eingestuften Tierarten müssen juristisch bindend Schutzpläne ausgearbeitet und Schutzmaßnahmen getroffen werden. Die als kritisch für das Überleben der bedrohten Tierart identifizierten Lebensräume müssen geschützt werden. Erst mit einer Klage von Umweltschutzgruppen gegen das kanadische Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) wegen Untätigkeit hatte dieses mit fünfjähriger Verspätung im Oktober 2013 den Schutzplan für die Buckelwale vorgelegt und endlich vier kritische Lebensräume ausgewiesen (critical habitat: habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species): Southeast Moresby Island (Südostküste von Haida Gwaii), Langara Island (Nordspitze von Haida Gwaii), Southwest Vancouver Island und Gil Island/Gribbell Island und der Eingang zum Douglas Channel. Mit der Herabsetzung des Schutzstatus von „bedroht“ auf „gefährdet“ müssen nun diese kritischen Lebensräume nicht mehr aktiv geschützt werden und bis zu 220 Öltanker können bei Realisierung des Northern Gateway Projektes problemlos durch das eigentlich vorgesehene Walschutzgebiet um Gil und Gribbell Island navigieren, was einen enormen Unterwasserlärm verursachen und mit extrem hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit irgendwann einmal zu einer katastrophalen Ölpest führen wird. Der Schutzplan für die Buckelwale und die Ausweisung der Schutzgebiete sind nur noch Makulatur. Eines der Haupthindernisse im Artenschutzbereich für das Northern Gateway Projekt – das geplante Walschutzgebiet, durch das die Tankerroute führen soll – wurde kurzerhand beseitigt. |
| |
 |
| Durch die Herabstufung des Schutzstatus der Buckelwale zur Makulatur geworden: Die vom DFO ausgewiesenen vier kritischen Lebensräume für Buckelwale entlang der Küste von BC |
© Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2013 |
|
| |
| „The change, made quietly over the Easter weekend when a notice was published in the Canada Gazette, removes one environmental hurdle for proposed pipeline projects in British Columbia, which would lead to an increase in oil tanker traffic on the West Coast. Critics say that is the real motivation for moving humpbacks from ‚threatened‘ to ‚special concern‘“, schrieb Mark Hume in seinem Artikel „Humpback whales rebound from near extinction, move down on at-risk species list“ am 22. April in The Globe and Mail. |
| |
 |
| Springender Buckelwal |
© Klaus Pommerenke |
|
| |
| Sicherlich ist die nordpazifische Population der Buckelwale wieder gewachsen, von etwa 1.400, die gegen Ende des kommerziellen Walfangs 1966 noch übrig geblieben sind, auf optimistisch geschätzte 18.000 erwachsene Tiere (hiervon befinden sich lediglich ca. 2.000 gleichzeitig in den Küstengewässern von BC), doch musste Dr. Marty Leonard, Vorsitzende des Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), einräumen: „We kept it at special concern because the population is still not back to where it would have been before it was harvested [by commercial whaling], and also there are still threats, there are ship strikes and they get caught in nets.“ Chris Genovali von der Raincoast Conservation Foundation vermutet eher politische Gründe für die Reduzierung des Schutzstatus: „I think the move to down-list humpback whales [is] a sleight-of-hand approach, which the government has used before to remove environmental obstacles that they fear are interfering with their stated agenda, which is getting Northern Gateway moving forward.“ Auch Peter O’Neil nennt in seinem Artikel „Ottawa removing North Pacific humpback whales from list of ‚threatened‘ species“ vom 22. April in der Vancouver Sun die Gründe für die politisch gewollte Rücknahme des Schutzstatus: „The Harper government is downgrading the protection of the North Pacific humpback whale despite objections from a clear majority of groups that were consulted. Critics say the whales could face greater danger if two major oilsands pipeline projects get the go-ahead, since both would result in a sharp increase in movement of large vessels on the West Coast that occasionally collide with, and kill, whales like the humpback. The decision was made under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), and declares the humpback a ‚species of special concern‘ rather than ‚threatened‘. The reclassification means the humpback will no longer be ‚subject to the general prohibitions set out in SARA, nor would its critical habitat be required to be legally protected under SARA‘, states the federal government notice published this month in the Canada Gazette. The decision removes a major legal hurdle that the environmental group Ecojustice said stood in the way of the $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project that would bring 550,000 barrels of diluted bitumen crude from Alberta to Kitimat.“ Von 22 Organisationen und Gruppen (BC Ministerien, akademische Institutionen, Umweltschutzgruppen, First Nations), die auf Konsultationsanfragen zur geplanten Veränderung des Schutzstatus antworteten, sprachen sich 13 für die Beibehaltung des Status als bedrohte Art aus, nur 5 wollten die Herabstufung als nur noch „gefährdete“ Art, vier bezogen keine klare Position. Unter Missachtung der Mehrheit der Vorschläge wurde der Schutzstatus trotzdem herabgesetzt. Die Provinzregierung von BC sprach sich – wie nicht anders zu erwarten war – natürlich ebenfalls für die Herabsetzung des Schutzstatus aus: „The Province of British Columbia has indicated support for listing the Humback Whale (North Pacific population) as a species of special concern“ (Species at Risk Public Registry, Vol. 148, No. 16, April 19, 2014. Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act). |
| „Humpback whales present a real problem for Northern Gateway“, sagte Misty MacDuffee, Meeresbiologin der Raincoast Conservation Foundation. „I think there was political influence – not based on sound science, information about threats that are only increasing. As soon as it’s down-listed, you don’t have to protect that critical habitat.“ Das COSEWIC leugnet zwar eine politische Einflussnahme auf seine Entscheidung, doch Andrew Trites, Meeresbiologe an der University of B.C. und COSEWIC-Mitglied, musste immerhin vielsagend einräumen: „There’s a case to be made that politics are moving this one through faster. The Canadian government seems to be slow to list species we’d considered threatened or endangered, but they seem much faster when we go the opposite direction.“ „Die Regierung beruft sich auf die Wissenschaft, in Wahrheit handelt es sich aber um eine politische Entscheidung zugunsten der Pipeline“, sagte Karen Wristen von der Living Oceans Society. Elizabeth May von der Grünen Partei in BC kritisiert die Entscheidung der Regierung ebenfalls scharf: „It looks as if they are blandly using the cover of science to push the agenda of the pipeline so that the protection of species doesn’t hinder the need to increase the tanker traffic in an area.“ Selbst die deutsche TAZ berichtete am 24. April über diese politisch gewollte Entscheidung, die unter dem Deckmantel der Wissenschaft geschickt verborgen wird: „Tanker kontra Buckelwale. Die kanadische Regierung reduziert den Schutz der bedrohten Walart. Damit wird der Bau einer umstrittenen Pipeline möglich“, lautete der Artikel von Jörg Michel. |
| |
| Der Kommentar von Misty MacDuffee und Chris Genovali von der Raincoast Conservation Foundation zur Reduzierung des Schutzstatus der Buckelwale, der am 26. April im Times Colonist erschienen ist und weiterführende Informationen zum Thema enthält, wird nachfolgend wiedergegeben: |
| |
| „Comment: Down-listing puts humpbacks in jeopardy |
| In the middle of the Easter long weekend, the federal government published a notice in the Canada Gazette that it intends to down-list the status of North Pacific humpback whales. |
| Although the status of humpback whales is one of the few obstacles muddling Harper’s forthcoming June decision on Northern Gateway, the June 2011 re-assessment by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, released in the middle of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel hearings, led to this announcement. |
| There are outstanding questions about the scientific reliability and sufficiency of the information the committee used to make the determination to down-list these animals. The proposed change in status would strip humpback whales of their legal right to critical habitat, thus making it acceptable to displace them from feeding grounds, degrade their waters with increased noise, dismiss mortality from ship strikes and increase the exposure risk to oil spills – all threats that accompany both the Enbridge Northern Gateway and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain tanker routes. |
| Most scientists would agree that humpbacks are „recovering“, but few would agree they are „recovered“. It is this issue that is causing the disagreement over whether the decision to down-list the B.C. population via the Species at Risk Act and the endangered-wildlife committee was premature, and not based on enough evidence of recovery in B.C. |
| Typically, threatened or endangered species have population targets that are established so that progress toward a recovery goal can be measured. In the case of humpback whales, no such recovery target existed. The stated recovery goal was to „maintain the current abundance of humpbacks and observe their continued growth and expansion into suitable habitats“. |
| The importance of numbers and the reliance on evidence is an important weakness in the committee’s decision. It is assumed, based on whaling records from the early 20th century, that the population of whales in B.C. waters is likely 50 per cent of what it was a century ago. By scientific standards, the return of 50 per cent of a population does not meet the definition of recovered. |
| Although the estimated 2,000 or so whales present in B.C. is a remarkable comeback story from what was likely a few hundred years ago, we do not have adequate systematic studies to document population growth or decline. |
| A second important weakness in the committee’s decision is its rejection of information suggesting that the B.C. humpback population could actually be two populations, not just one. Humpback whales have a remarkable site fidelity to their breeding grounds and their feeding grounds, information that is handed down from mother to calf over the years and through generations. |
| The work of Scott Baker, a marine scientist who has spent years characterizing the structure of the North Pacific humpback population, supports the recognition of multiple distinct populations. Baker states: „They differ based on geographic distribution and with genetic differentiations as well, and they have strong fidelity to their own breeding and feeding areas.“ |
| Baker’s work suggests that the B.C. humpback population is made up of two units. It is likely the northern grouping is doing much better than the southern group. Critical habitat for the southern group lies off southwestern Vancouver Island, and includes the shipping lanes entering Juan de Fuca Strait. |
| With the down-listing, no money will be made available to do population assessments. The southern population is small and if it were being adversely affected by ship strikes or fishing gear entanglement, we would never know. With the decrease in funding for research, we are blindfolding ourselves – we will be unable assess future or existing problems with recovery. |
| A hydrophone array between Kitimat and Caamano Sound show these waters to be among the quietest in B.C. These waters are currently identified as critical to humpback survival. They are also the same waters that will see daily oil tanker traffic as part of the Northern Gateway project. |
| One of the responsibilities of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is to identify and monitor the threats to listed species. The committee rightly identifies threats associated with shipping, noise, vessel strikes and oil spills. Down-listing assumes that the threats have been considered and addressed. |
| On the contrary, the committee’s down-listing comes at a time when we know that the risks are about to get much more severe. |
| Ultimately, the timing to down-list humpback whales suggests a sleight-of-hand approach designed to remove environmental obstacles that interfere with the federal government’s agenda to export oilsands oil. This translates into risking the recovery of humpback whales in order to construct the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan oilsands pipeline and oil-tanker projects at seemingly any cost. |
| We might never know the degree to which political pressure influenced the timing of the committee’s re-assessment and the fast-tracking of the species-at-risk down-listing. What we do know is that politics has been the prime driver behind the federal government’s ongoing dismantling of environmental legislation and species protection.“ |
| © Copyright Times Colonist |
| |
 zurück |
