May 13, 2019
During this 2019 provincial election campaign, CPAWS-NL asked each political party their position on four important priorities for protecting and enhancing Newfoundland and Labrador’s spectacular natural beauty and ecosystems. Below are their answers.
1. What will your party do to help Canada meet
its national targets of protecting 17% terrestrial and 10% of our marine
environment?
Liberal: Right now the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has 55
provincially protected areas and 8 federally protected areas. Our province is also committed to the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets signed onto by Canada.
These are the targets that commit the nation to protecting 17% of lands
and inland waters by 2020. Newfoundland
and Labrador currently has 4.6% of our land under protection which is below the
national average of 10%. None-the-less our province is committed to putting
more land and inland waters under protection. A key step toward achieving this
goal is the establishment of a Natural Areas System Plan which is still being
worked on in our province.
NDP:
Canada made
a commitment under the UN Convention on Biodiversity to protect 17% of its land
by 2020. The target is still so far off due to inaction that last year 100
Liberal, NDP and Conservative MPs and Senators signed a letter to the federal
Finance Minister asking for an investment to expand protected land areas across
the country.
Newfoundland
and Labrador’s record is one of the worst in the country, with only 4.57% of
land securely protected compared to the national average of 9.3%. The NDP has
raised this environmental deficit repeatedly in the legislature. We will
continue to work towards raising the percentage at least to the national
average.
PC:
The ocean
aspect of this issue concerns me, because it does not appear that Newfoundland
and Labrador is properly represented around the table. Our Blue Book addresses
the issue of Marine Protected Areas repeatedly. Regarding fisheries, we states:
“While marine protection areas afford environmental protection, there has not
been sufficient study or consultation with the fishing, or oil and gas,
industries. We demand that our important industries be provided the careful
analysis required before further decisions are taken”. We must ensure that,
when we are talking about striking the optimal balance between development and
protection, we are the decision-making table and working with solid evidence.
In terms of parks and protected natural areas that fall within provincial jurisdiction,
we need to be equally vigilant in ensuring we strike the right balance based on
the evidence and open consultation with people. We do need development and
jobs, but we must also realize that important resource management and tourism jobs
can be sustained in the natural areas we protect.
2. Will your party commit to publicly release
the provinces long overdue, Natural Areas System Plan (NASP) as the next
step towards establishing an effective network of protected natural areas and
ecologically significant sites within the province?
Liberal: The province is working on a Natural Areas System Plan at
present and does commit to make the plan public. While developing a
comprehensive plan has proven challenging there is much progress being made. A key step toward achieving this goal
is securing representative portions of our diverse landscapes – and examples of
our special sites – in a protected-areas network. This important conservation
action can ultimately make a significant contribution towards a sustainable,
resource-based economy.
The province has undertaken analysis and scientific consultation to
identify the gaps and the best ways to fill them. Again, based on this research, the Province
has created a draft Protected Areas Strategy for improving our protected areas
network.
NDP: The
NL NDP has long advocated for the completion and release of the Natural Areas
System Plan. Successive governments have brought the Plan to the brink of
release, only to pull back. We support and will work towards the release of
this Plan, and support CPAWS in its efforts to get it released.
PC: I am aware that
developing a Natural Areas Systems Plan has been an objective of conservation
groups for a very long time. The fact that the plan is still on the drawing
board suggests to me that the issue is complicated and there are issues of contention.
As Premier, I will be eager to get a briefing on the plan, an update on progress
and a full understanding of the impediments to completion of the plan. If there
is a way to get past the areas of contention, we may be able to get the plan finalized
and released. I look forward to discussing the matter further with groups such
as yours.
3. Will your party work to create a buffer
zone/co-management area surrounding Gros Morne National Park and World Heritage
Site, as recommended by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, to safeguard the
park’s globally significant natural values, and the NL tourism economy that
depends on them?
Liberal:
Your Liberal Government is committed
to protecting these vital assets in our province. Gros Morne National Park and
world heritage site is a very special place and as a government we are
committed to maintaining the pristine environment in which they exist. The idea of creating a buffer zone /
co-management area is intriguing and worth pursuing. While promises would have to be frowned upon,
given the lack of any kind of detailed process or plan, government would be
open to meeting with representatives of CPAWS and others to discuss this
possibility going forward.
NDP: In our 2014 Convention, we passed a resolution to endorse a protective
buffer zone around Gros Morne National Park that would be free of industrial
development. The resolution recognized that it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site
and a cornerstone of the tourism industry in Western Newfoundland, and that
industrial activity could encroach on park boundaries and put the natural area
and its ecosystems at risk. We will continue to advocate for this buffer zone.
PC:
A government
I lead would be willing to work with groups such as yours to understand any
threats to the integrity of our parks, any mitigation measures that might be
required and the implications of such measures. I believe in consultation,
collaboration, openness and evidence. Everyone who has a stake in this should
be invited to the table, including local resident, municipal leaders, environmental
groups, scientists, federal officials, tourism leaders, and so forth. With so
many voices, we have a better chance of striking the right balance and avoiding
harm. I do believe in enhancing our natural areas for the benefit of current
and future generations, and for the benefit of the tourism industry, which
offers phenomenal opportunities for sustainable growth in our province.
4. Will your party launch a feasibility study
with Parks Canada for a National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) for the Southwest
Coast Fjords of Newfoundland to protect endangered ecosystems and support local
communities in the region?
Liberal:
Your
Liberal Government is appreciative of the work being undertaken by C-PAWS and
the overall objective of preserving up to 10% of Canada’s marine areas. As was
mentioned earlier our province is part of the Canadian initiative to put 17% of
our land and inland waters, as well as 10% of our coastal waters, under
environmental protection. Without first
consulting with Parks Canada and determining a willingness on their part to
participate we cannot commit to the idea of a jointly funded feasibility study
as presented. However this is not an idea we would take lightly and would
encourage further discussion once the election period has ended.
NDP: We supported the Town of Burgeo
when it lobbied for a Marine Protected Area on the South Coast. We loudly
protested to the government in 2012 when it decided not to cooperate with the
federal government in studying and pursuing a marine park. We would support a
revisiting of this proposal. It would preserve the South Coast fjords and
provide opportunities for stable, long-term jobs associated with the marine
park and tourism.
PC: This
is an intriguing proposal. What would it mean? Again, I believe in entertaining
proposals like this around a big table, with all interested and affected
parties involved and all the evidence and implications openly displayed for all
to see. Sound proposals tend to capture the public imagination and gain their
own momentums. Dissenting voices will also have the opportunity to be heard and
suggest alternatives, if they so wish. Would there be implications for resource
development (fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas development, and so forth) that some
communities might not want? Or would the protections create new opportunities
that would more than compensate for the alternatives? Around a table, such
matters could be discussed. It would soon be clear whether a feasibility study
is warranted based on those discussions.
