HABITAT MANAGEMENT 25 



3. The Department should adopt an explicit policy for 

 assessing proposed developments that threaten fish 

 habitat and for determining compensation where 

 required, based on the following precepts: 



i) In considering proposals for new developments, 

 the Department should investigate their impact 

 on fish habitat and all feasible means of avoiding 

 or minimizing harm to fish. 



ii) Developers should be required to adopt all rea- 

 sonable measures to avoid or mitigate damage to 

 fish habitat. 



iii) If such measures are insufficient to prevent habi- 

 tat damage, the Department should be authorized 

 (but not required) to approve the development, 

 but only if the loss in fish production capacity is 

 fully compeasated through increased fish produc- 

 tion capacity elsewhere. The compeasation 

 should take the form of new fish production 

 capacity created by the developer, or cash 

 sufficient to enable the Department to replace the 

 equivalent of the lost productive capacity. Cash 

 compensation should be paid into the Pacific 

 Fisheries Conservation Fund (recommended 

 below). 



Proposals should be considered under the referral 

 arrangements and special review and approval proce- 

 dures described below. 



Compensation in the form of habitat improvement 

 work would be particularly suitable where a developer, 

 such as a forest company, has men and equipment that 

 are capable of carrying out a function such as stream 

 improvement in the locality in which they are working. 

 Cash compensation will be appropriate when the off- 

 setting measures to be undertaken would be best done by 

 the Department, perhaps in other areas. 



I emphasize that the decision as to whether compensa- 

 tion arrangements should be adopted in any particular 

 case, and what form they should take, should rest with 

 the government and not with the proponents of the devel- 

 opment. And these measures should be applied cau- 

 tiously, not as a substitute for, but as a necessary adjunct 

 to, sound integrated resource planning (discussed below). 

 Thus, compensation should not be invoked to accommo- 

 date damage to habitat that could be reasonably avoided 

 or where it would be imprudent for biological or other 

 reasons to sacrifice particular stocks. 



In cases where cash compensation is to be paid, the 

 amount should be determined according to the Depart- 

 ment's estimates of the cost of replacing the lost fish pro- 

 duction capacity. The money should be put into a fund 

 earmarked for habitat development purposes. 



4. A fund should be created, called the Pacific Fisheries 

 Conservation Fund, to be administered by the Depart- 

 ment of Fisheries and Oceans. Money paid into the 

 fund in the form of compensation for damage to fish 

 habitat should be spent only on habitat improvement 

 and other fish-production measures. 



These proposals are intended to ensure that the aggre- 

 gate capability of the land and water in the Pacific region 

 to produce fish will be maintained, while permitting the 

 flexibility required to respond to other demands on habi- 

 tat in particular places. They will focus attention on dam- 

 age to habitat that can be identified in advance and are 

 quantifiable in terms of lost potential fish production. 

 They call for a concerted effort on the part of the Depart- 

 ment to broaden its knowledge about how changes to fish 

 habitat affect its fish production capacity. But imperfect 

 information should not impede the direction of the 

 reforms I have proposed here; it only calls for caution in 

 applying them. The provincial Ministry of Environment 

 has recently embarked on a similar course, with the cre- 

 ation of a wildlife Habitat Conservation Fund, which 

 apparently is operating successfully.'' 



The Department's role in determining appropriate 

 mitigation and compensation should be largely technical, 

 involving estimates of the anticipated fish and habitat 

 losses and prescribing remedial measures to offset them. 

 Thus, the Department's attention should be focused 

 sharply on biological and engineering considerations, 

 where its expertise is strongest. 



It is sometimes claimed that a proposed development 

 will yield economic, social or strategic benefits that 

 outweigh fishery losses that they cause, and that becau.se 

 these benefits take such an indirect form (through 

 employment, foreign exchange earnings, national defense 

 and so on) full compensation for damaged fish habitat 

 should not be required. In such cases, the responsibility 

 for making the necessary judgement rests squarely on the 

 cabinet. 



Accordingly, I recommend — 



5. If it is deemed to be in the public interest to exempt 

 any development proposal from the provisions for 

 mitigation and compensation in respect of damage to 

 fish habitat, the decision should be made not by the 

 Department but by the federal cabinet. 



Any such exemptions should be granted publicly and for 

 explicit reasons. 



Habitat Enhancement 



Until recently, the main thrust of the Department's 

 activities in habitat has been reactive and defensive, 

 confined largely to fending off threats posed by various 

 kinds of activities. But, as is noted in Table 3-1, funds 



