Governments should be informed by the best available data and evidence. There are societal, environmental, and economic ramifications of not doing so.

Despite this, some decision-makers appear to attach little value to scientific advice. Changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012 provide one example. Another was very quietly communicated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) late last week.

The decision involves northern cod. This is the fish off Newfoundland and Labrador whose fishery closure in 1992 triggered the loss of 30-40,000 jobs, the spending of billions in financial aid and the emigration of 10 per cent of the province’s population.

By 1992, northern cod had declined 99 per cent. It is recognized globally as the textbook example of a fishery collapse. In 2010, the Minister of the Environment was advised that the species is endangered throughout most of its Canadian range.

Despite the best available data and evidence, DFO is now permitting higher catches of northern cod.

Put one way, the allotment is now 2268 kg for each of about 1,800 fishermen, a 33 per-cent increase compared to 2012. Put another way, the new catch quota is double what it was in 2008. Put yet another way, at least 6 million kgs of cod will likely be taken in each of the next three years. (For perspective, 6 million kgs of cod is roughly equal, by weight, to more than 80,000 humans.)

No matter how many ways you look at it, more northern cod will almost certainly be caught in 2013 than in any year in the past decade. The catch will be among the highest since 1992.

This decision by DFO Minister Keith Ashfield raises a number of questions.

Have northern cod recovered? Can the quota increase be defended as clearly being part of a rebuilding plan? Are there recovery targets against which society can judge the minister’s decision? Is his decision to increase northern cod catches supported by science? Does it reflect a precautionary approach to resource management?

No, no, no, no, and no.

DFO scientists estimate that abundance is so low that northern cod might experience serious harm, affecting their future. The stock is 85 per cent below the level at which a fishery would be considered permissible in many countries, such as the U.S. and Australia.

Put simply, bank accounts do not grow when the monies accrued from interest are skimmed every year. The same is true for fish populations.

Failure to implement the most basic elements of precautionary management inhibits not only the recovery of cod, but the recovery of ecosystem resilience, food supply and the job security that goes with it.

Even if you do not live near an ocean, you have a stake in this.

According to the Supreme Court, fisheries are a common property resource, belonging to all the people of Canada. It is the duty and responsibility of DFO ministers to manage, conserve, and develop the fisheries on behalf of Canadians in the public interest.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

It is time we insist that they do so.

Jeffrey Hutchings is Killam Professor in the faculty of science at Dalhousie University and President of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution.