Newfoundland and Labrador 2019 Provincial Election Q&A
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.
