Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
What is an endangered species worth? Threshold costs for protecting
imperilled fishes in Canada
Jessica A. Schultz a,1, Emily S. Darling a, Isabelle M. Côté a,b,n
a
b
Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 463, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 19 December 2012
Received in revised form
22 January 2013
Accepted 24 January 2013
The protection of imperilled fish species is increasingly urgent given ongoing fisheries declines and the
degradation of aquatic habitats. In Canada, threatened aquatic species were less likely than terrestrial
species to be listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the main legal instrument for bestowing
protection, in the early years of the Act’s implementation. In this paper, the existence of economic
thresholds that might have hampered the protection of Canadian marine and freshwater fishes is
examined. The analysis of the socio-economic data used to inform listing decisions about threatened
fish taxa over the past decade reveals that the likelihood of being listed declines non-linearly with
increasing estimated costs of protection but does not vary with proposed threat status. The estimated
threshold cost (i.e., the point at which the likelihood of not being listed ¼ 0.5) was $5,000,000
( $1,400,000 to $31,400,000, 95% CI) per decade for freshwater species but only $90,000
($ 50,000 to $140,000, 95% CI) per decade for marine fish taxa. In fact, no marine fish species with
an anticipated cost of listing greater than zero was listed for protection. The presence of existing
management legislation and qualitative statements about negative impacts of listing on exploitation
generally led to denying protection to marine but not to freshwater species. These findings highlight
both a large and inconsistent emphasis on costs of protection in SARA listing decisions, to the detriment
of marine fish species.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Aquatic conservation
Conservation legislation
Cost–benefit analysis
Endangered species
Marine conservation policy
1. Introduction
Many fish species, and the fisheries they support, are in decline
around the world [1]. In the marine realm, three-quarters of fish
stocks are either fully exploited or overexploited [2]. Many
targeted fisheries for large predatory species, as well as those
targeting small fish at low trophic levels, have collapsed [3,4].
Furthermore, incidental bycatch has been implicated in the endangerment of many marine taxa [5,6]. Freshwater ecosystems are
also under intense pressures [7,8], with inland fish biodiversity
threatened by overfishing, habitat destruction and pollution [9].
Effective protection of fish species and their habitats is urgent.
Conservation legislation has been implemented in many countries to address the general biodiversity crisis. In Canada, the
Species at Risk Act (SARA) was implemented in 2003. Under SARA,
Canadian imperilled species can be legally protected from harm,
capture and habitat destruction [10]. Although SARA has been
lauded for clearly separating scientific assessment from policy
n
Corresponding author at: Simon Fraser University, Department of Biological
Sciences, Earth to Ocean Research Group, 8888 University Dr, Burnaby, British
Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6. Tel.: þ1 778 782 3705; fax: þ1 778 782 3496.
E-mail address: imcote@sfu.ca (I.M. Côté).
1
Current address: Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.
0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.021
[11], its implementation has been slow and uneven. In particular,
there appears to be a clear bias against listing fishes [12–14]. In
the first five years of SARA, approximately half of freshwater
fishes and all marine fishes recommended for listing by the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) – the independent scientific body which assigns a
risk status to species based on scientific criteria – were rejected
by the Canadian government, while most birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants were protected [12]. In those early years, there
was a close association across all taxa between the likelihood of
being rejected and being harvested as well as having Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO) as the authority responsible for recovery
[12]. In 50% of cases where species were denied protection, socioeconomic costs were cited as a reason [12]. In the case of fishes,
whether or not to protect a species appeared to be based on
politically driven decisions and concern over fishery closures [15],
such that even relatively small economic impacts could prevent
listing [14].
This study builds on previous work [12,14] by quantifying the
magnitude of the economic impacts that prevent listing. In other
words, is there an economic ‘glass ceiling’ that prevents the
protection of imperilled fish species in Canada? Specifically, the
three goals were to measure the threshold costs that jeopardize
the likelihood of being protected under SARA, to determine
whether these thresholds are consistent across marine and
126
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
freshwater fishes, and to examine the relative importance of costs
and threat status for the probability of being listed. By focusing
on fishes, the influence of responsible authority – an important
correlate of the likelihood of being listed – was removed since all
fishes fall under the purview of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As
did [12], but now with a decade of listing decisions, the qualitative reasons invoked for listing and not listing fish species were
examined, but with a focus on asking whether the same reasons
consistently led to the same listing outcome for marine and
freshwater fishes. In this way, transparency in the application of
one of the most important legislative tools for species protection
in Canada was assessed in terms of process and consistency
across taxonomic groups.
2. Methodology
2.1. How SARA works
The process of listing species, subspecies, or distinct populations under SARA has been reviewed in detail elsewhere
[11,12,15]. Briefly, COSEWIC undertakes status reviews of taxa
found within Canadian borders. The choice of species for review
does not depend on economic value or on the likelihood of federal
consent to listing, but on perceived level of threat (J.D. Reynolds,
COSEWIC Marine Fishes Species Specialist Committee, personal
communication). COSEWIC scientific reports and listing recommendations are submitted annually to the federal Minister of the
Environment (MoE) – a post held by an appointed politician –
who reviews them in light of a socio-economic assessment and
consultations with stakeholders and the public. Beyond having 90
days to declare how the Minister intends to respond to a
COSEWIC recommendation, no timeline is specified for the consultation period, and species recommendations may undergo an
extended consultation period if so designated by the Minister.
Once the consultation is complete, the Minister forwards all
information to the Governor in Council (i.e., Canada’s House of
Commons), which must decide within nine months either to list a
species as recommended by COSEWIC, not list the species, or refer
the species back to COSEWIC for further evaluation. Species listed
as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened receive automatic legal
protection (i.e., immediate prohibitions on direct take and
destruction of residence, but ‘critical habitat’ is not protected
until identified in a recovery strategy or action plan), while listing
a species as Special Concern initiates a management plan but
entails no prohibitions of deleterious activities. To maintain
transparency, justification for each decision is published in the
Canada Gazette, which publishes new laws, acts, regulations,
official appointments and public notices on a weekly basis
(www.canadagazette.gc.ca). The justifications include a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS), which is prepared by the
sponsoring department (without external peer-review) and must
include a cost–benefit analysis (for more details, see [11]). Once
species are listed, their status may change with a new COSEWIC
assessment, which occurs at least every 10 years, and subsequent
listing process [16].
2.2. Species status information
Information was collected on the status of marine and freshwater fishes from the SARA Registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca),
including the COSEWIC recommended status and current SARA
status. The realm occupied by each taxon was determined by the
COSEWIC Species Specialist Committee (SSC) (i.e., Marine Fishes
SSC or Freshwater Fishes SSC) that assessed the taxon. Thus all
anadromous fishes were classified as marine, which is justified in
this study since most of the anticipated costs of listing such
species pertained to prohibitions of marine activities. Where the
COSEWIC status and SARA status were the same, the taxon was
considered ‘listed’. Otherwise, the taxon was scored as ‘not listed’
if a decision had been published and listing was denied. This
study therefore did not include taxa for which recommendations
were returned to COSEWIC for further evaluation or for which a
listing outcome had yet to be published. Because COSEWIC often
assesses distinct populations or subspecies separately [17], using
units of assessment that are analogous to Distinct Populations
Segments in the USA [18], the term ‘species’ is used to indicate
any taxon for which COSEWIC conducted an assessment. This
study was restricted to species with a COSEWIC recommended
status of Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern,
since species designated Extinct, Not at Risk or Data Deficient
trigger no socio-economic assessment.
Initially, the intention was to compare the costs and benefits of
listing marine species with that for terrestrial or freshwater
species, focussing on mammals, molluscs and fishes. However,
for species other than fishes, socio-economic data in the Canada
Gazette either lacked dollar amounts (e.g., [19]), or multiple
species were accounted for in general terms (e.g., [20]). Socioeconomic impact reports on non-fish species from other sources
were not publicly available.
The present study thus included marine and freshwater fish
species that had undergone the SARA process outlined above and
for which a listing decision had been made between 2003 and the
end of 2010. The 30 species that were automatically listed when
SARA came into force in 2003 (SARA 2003, Schedule 1) were not
included, unless a species had been re-evaluated by COSEWIC,
with a recommendation for change of status.
2.3. Analysis of quantitative costs and benefits
Listing notifications published in the Canada Gazette were
examined to extract the anticipated costs and benefits of protecting freshwater and marine fishes. Costs were often assigned to
specific economic activities that could be affected by species
protection. These activities included: commercial and recreational
fishing restrictions or closures, fish processing industry losses,
impacts due to required reductions in bycatch in other fisheries,
costs to other industries such as tourism and shipping, and
indirect impacts on the economy. Also listed were some of the
costs of implementing protection, such as the costs of habitat
protection, monitoring fish populations in the absence of a fishery, research and public education. Listing a species also entails
costs in terms of developing a management plan, recovery
strategy or recovery action plan; however, since dollar values
for these planning activities were not given, they could not be
considered. In one case (the winter skate, Leucoraja ocellata),
dollar amounts were not provided in the Canada Gazette, but
were available in Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
Socio-Economic Analysis Reports [21,22]. The information provided for this species was included because these reports are used
in listing decisions [12], and the costs they provide are consistent
with those published in the Canada Gazette when both are
available (e.g., Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua [21,23]). The sum of
all dollar amounts given for a particular species was recorded as
the cost of listing, and scaled to a 10-year period because most
amounts provided were per decade. For species for which no
dollar amounts were given, the cost of listing was recorded as
zero since impacts on economic activities were invariably
described as negligible.
Economic benefits were seldom provided in dollar amounts
(see Section 3 results). When they were provided as a range, the
mid-range value was recorded and scaled to a 10-year period.
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
127
When benefits were either not mentioned, or described as ‘of no
value but likely to accrue in the distant future’ or ‘likely limited’,
the benefits of listing were recorded as zero.
An information-theoretic approach and logistic regression
models were used to evaluate the relationships between the
likelihood of being listed for protection and habitat (marine vs.
freshwater), the anticipated cost of listing, and threat status, as
reflected by the status recommended by COSEWIC (Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered) [24]. For these analyses, striped
bass Morone saxatilis was excluded, because it was the only
species with a COSEWIC status of extirpated, hence there was
no replication for this threat status. There was a strong association between the likelihood of being listed and cost (e.g., listed
species often have low costs while non-listed species often have
high costs), which introduced a separation or quasi-separation
problem in logistic regression [12]. To address this issue, parameter estimates were calculated using Firth’s penalized loglikelihood [25,26] in the ‘logistf’ package in R [27], which has
been shown to be suitable for situations of separation in logistic
regression [28]. A total of 11 logistic models were constructed to
test various combinations of the three main effects (habitat, cost,
threat status) and their two-way interactions. For each model, the
Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample size
(AICc) was calculated. Lower AICc values indicate bettersupported models relative to others in the candidate set. The
Akaike difference (DAICc) between the model with the lowest
AICc and each of the other models was then calculated. As a rule
of thumb, values of DAICc which are o2 are considered to
represent substantial support for a model [24]. Finally, the AICc
weight (w) of each model, which indicates the probability that the
model is the best among the candidate models, was obtained. The
confidence set of candidate models included models with Akaike
weights that were within 10% of the highest weight [24]. Modelaveraged parameter estimates were calculated for each parameter
in the confidence set.
To identify the habitat-specific threshold costs beyond which
the likelihood of being listed became substantially reduced,
logistic regressions were carried out of the effect of cost on the
probability of being listed separately for marine and freshwater
species. M. saxatilis was included in this analysis. Threshold cost
was defined as the estimated cost at a 50% probability of being
listed and 95% confidence intervals around each threshold cost
were estimated from the standard error of the parameter estimate. Estimated costs or benefits were log10 þ 1 transformed prior
to analysis.
benefits were listed. Anticipated benefits included: future commercial, non-use value, biodiversity and ecosystem benefits,
aboriginal value and scientific value. ‘Exploitation’ impacts
included mentions of costs of prohibitions to the commercial
fishing industry (5), recreational fishing industry (6), or to another
fishery due to bycatch regulation (7). SARA listing
may ultimately entail habitat protection for many species (SARA
Sect 58); therefore, restrictions on development were often cited
as potential impacts. These included hydroelectric restrictions (8),
such as limiting dams and water use, and coastal restrictions (9),
which included limits on marina construction, dredging,
urban development, road development and agriculture. These
first nine factors related to potential economic consequences of
listing.
Under ‘legislation’, mentions of existing management (10) or
Aboriginal issues (11) were included. Existing management
included species protection under another act (e.g., the Canada
National Parks Act or Fisheries Act), sharing habitat with an
already-listed species, or past protection under SARA when a
species had a different status. Aboriginal issues were noted when
it was stated that the food, social and cultural requirements of
Aboriginal people, which are enshrined in the Canadian constitution, might conflict with SARA regulations. Within the ’biology0
category, statements declaring that the species was unlikely to
recover even if protected (12), and those stating that monitoring
or research costs in the absence of a fishery were likely (13), were
included. Finally, ‘public opinion’ statements were divided into
those for (14) and against (15) listing.
The number of fish species whose RIAS mentioned each
particular factor was tallied, and plotted as percentages of the
number of marine or freshwater species with a listing decision,
separately for listed and not-listed groups. More than one factor
was usually given for each species. The total percentages therefore exceed 100.
2.4. Qualitative factors invoked in listing decisions
Overall, there was a significant difference in the likelihood of
being listed between marine and freshwater species: 43% of
marine fishes (9 of 21 species) and 87% of freshwater fishes (29
of 33 species) (X21 ¼12.5, p o0.001) recommended by COSEWIC
had been listed under SARA by the end of 2010. The estimated
cost of listing marine species was significantly higher (mean 71
SE; $57,289,0007$2,037,760 per 10 years) than that of freshwater species ($3,520,0007$2,401,750 per 10 years; t-test for
unequal variances, t20.56 ¼ 2.62, p¼0.016).
When cost, habitat and threat status were considered simultaneously, two models explaining likelihood of being listed
obtained substantial support (DAICco2) compared to other
models considered (Table 2). The anticipated costs of listing
featured in both, while habitat was included in one of the top
two models. Threat status did not predict the likelihood of being
listed (Table 2). Increasing cost decreased the likelihood of
imperilled fishes being listed (model-averaged parameter estimate 7SE: 3.1571.09), as did inhabiting marine habitats
( 1.0370.98), although the effect of habitat was weaker than
that of cost.
The qualitative reasons and potential impacts (which we refer
to as ‘factors’) associated with each listing decision were summarised, with a view to comparing the relative frequency with
which each factor was invoked for listed and unlisted marine and
freshwater taxa. There were 15 recurring factors, numbered and
described below, grouped for convenience into six categories:
cost/benefit statements, exploitation, development, legislation,
biology and public opinion. Each factor mentioned in a species’
RIAS was scored as ‘invoked’ (score¼ 1) for that species, while all
factors not specifically mentioned were scored as ‘not invoked’
(score ¼0).
Under the ‘cost/benefit statement’ category, any phrase that
was synonymous with either an ‘insignificant cost’ (factor 1) or a
‘significant cost’ (2) was counted if it described an overall
expected financial outcome of listing. Similarly, benefits were
scored as ‘benefit absent’ (3) when potential benefits were not
mentioned or described as likely to be limited or to accrue only in
the distant future, or as ‘benefit present’ (4), when anticipated
3. Results
COSEWIC has recommended 110 fish species for listing since
its inception in 2003. Of these, 54 had received a listing decision
supported by economic data by the end of 2010 (Table 1).
Decisions were pending for the remaining species.
3.1. Costs, benefits and likelihood of being listed
128
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
Table 1
List of Canadian fish taxa recommended for protection by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Each taxon’s habitat (as determined
by COSEWIC) is given (M¼ marine; F ¼ freshwater), as is the threat level recommended by COSEWIC and the status ultimately awarded by the federal government (SARA
status). ‘No status’ indicates that the taxon was denied protection.
Species
Population
Habitat
COSEWIC recommendation
SARA status
Atlantic Cod
Atlantic Cod
Bocaccio
Canary Rockfish
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
Porbeagle
Sockeye Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Winter Skate
Winter Skate
Winter Skate
Basking Shark
Bluntnose Sixgill Shark
Longspine Thornyhead
Rougheye Rockfish type I
Rougheye Rockfish type II
Tope
White Shark
Yelloweye Rockfish
Yelloweye Rockfish
Bering Cisco
Black Redhorse
White Sturgeon
White Sturgeon
Banded Killifish
Bigmouth Buffalo
Carmine Shiner
Channel Darter
Copper Redhorse
Deepwater Sculpin
Enos Lake Benthic Threespine Stickleback
Enos Lake Limnetic Threespine Stickleback
Grass Pickerel
Green Sturgeon
Lake Chubsucker
Misty Lake Lentic Threespine Stickleback
Misty Lake Lotic Threespine Stickleback
Northern Brook Lamprey
Northern Madtom
Pugnose Shiner
River Redhorse
Rocky Mountain Sculpin
Salish Sucker
Shortnose Cisco
Shortnose Sturgeon
Speckled Dace
Striped Bass
Upper Great Lakes Kiyi
Westslope Cutthroat Trout
White Sturgeon
White Sturgeon
White Sturgeon
White Sturgeon
Laurentian North
Newfoundland & Labrador
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Extirpated
Special concern
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
No status
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
No status
No status
No status
No status
Special concern
Special concern
Threaten
Threatened
Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Extirpated
Special concern
Special concern
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Okanagan
Interior Fraser
Cultus Lake
Sakinaw
Eastern Scotian Shelf
Georges Bank–Western Scotian Shelf–Bay of Fundy
Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence
Pacific
Atlantic
Pacific-inside waters
Pacific-outside waters
Lower Fraser River
Middle Fraser River
Newfoundland
Saskatchewan–Nelson River
Great Lakes–Western St. Lawrence
Great Lakes–Upper St. Lawrence
Eastslope
St. Lawrence Estuary
British Columbia
Kootenay River
Nechako River
Upper Columbia River
Upper Fraser River
For marine species, no species with a cost greater than zero
was listed for protection (Fig. 1a). Estimated threshold costs, at
which the likelihood of being listed equals 0.5, varied from
$90,309 ($46,165 to $137,365, 95% CI) over 10 years for marine
taxa (Fig. 1a) to $4,998,400 ($1,398,833 to $31,359,366, 95% CI)
per decade for freshwater species (Fig. 1b).
Estimates in dollar amounts of the benefits of listing were
given in the RIAS for only one-third of species (18 of 54; vs. 100%
of species for cost estimates). Of these, 17 species were assessed
as providing no benefit if listed (benefit value ¼$0); a non-zero
value was given for a single species (chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Okanagan population, modal value: $12.5
million per 10 years). It was therefore not possible to establish the
nature of the relationship between benefits of listing and the
likelihood of being listed.
3.2. Qualitative statements
The qualitative factors invoked to justify listing decisions
sometimes differed in frequency of use and in listing outcome
between marine and freshwater fishes (Fig. 2). Insignificant costs
and the presence of benefits were the most common reason
invoked to support the listing of fish species, regardless of biome.
However, while significant costs contributed to not listing onethird of marine fishes, significant costs were never cited as a
reason not to list freshwater fishes. Exploitation factors were the
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
129
Table 2
Candidate set of logistic regression models (calculated with Firth’s penalized loglikelihoods) of the effects of habitat (marine or freshwater), anticipated costs of
listing, and threat status (as recommended by COSEWIC) on the likelihood of
becoming listed for 53 fish taxa in Canada. DAICc is the difference in AICc values
between a given model and the best-supported model; wi is the probability that
model i is the best one of those considered, and k is the number of parameters in
each model. The models shown in bold were included in parameter averaging.
Model
k
AICc
DAICc wi
Cost
Cost þhabitat
Cost þ threat status
Cost þ habitat þcost habitat
Cost þ threat status þhabitat
Cost þ threat status þcost threat status
Habitat þ threat status
Threat status þ habitat þ habitat threat status
Habitat
Threat status
1
2
3
3
4
5
3
5
1
2
25.98
27.25
29.49
30.56
30.94
38.55
46.49
51.26
51.94
58.08
0
1.28
3.52
4.58
4.97
12.58
20.51
25.29
25.97
32.11
0.53
0.28
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.001
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
o 0.0001
most often mentioned issues for not listing marine species, with
impacts on commercial exploitation, in particular, cited in nearly
60% of marine cases. Exploitation impacts were never cited for
marine fishes that were listed. In contrast, commercial exploitation was mentioned for less than 5% of freshwater species, and
bycatch issues for one-third of freshwater taxa, and in most cases,
those species were listed. Potential impacts on development were
only cited for freshwater fishes, most of which became listed.
Legislation issues had contradictory effects for freshwater and
marine species. More specifically, existing management was cited
as a reason to list nearly half the species of freshwater fish,
yet also cited as a reason to not list nearly half of marine fishes.
Similarly, one-quarter of marine species were associated with
aboriginal use and were not listed, while aboriginal use was
mentioned for one-third of freshwater species, and these species
were all listed. Biological monitoring and research costs were
cited infrequently, but were most often mentioned for marine
species that were not listed. Low probability of recovery was cited
as a reason to not list 30% of marine species but not mentioned
for any freshwater fish. Note that it is not clear how recovery
probability was assessed as it is usually not stated in COSEWIC
reports. Finally, public opinion for protection supported decisions
to list fishes in Canada while public opinion against listing was
generally associated with not listing. Lack of public support for
protection was invoked in one-quarter of marine species that
were not listed.
4. Discussion
The results illustrate the considerable weight given to financial
costs in conservation listing decisions of fishes in Canada. By
contrast, the threat status of a fish species has little influence on
its likelihood of becoming listed. The presence of an economic
‘glass ceiling’ – a threshold cost beyond which the likelihood of
being listed becomes negligible – should be expected in analyses
that measure costs and benefits to inform future action. However,
the thresholds identified here did not appear to arise from
obvious cost–benefit trade-offs. While anticipated benefits were
qualitatively mentioned for many taxa that became listed, and
their absence noted for unlisted taxa, quantitative economic
benefits were provided for only one species (i.e., chinook salmon).
Hence, while the possibility of future benefits may have played
some role in listing decisions, cost considerations did so more
evidently but also inconsistently. Marine and freshwater fish
Fig. 1. The probability of listing a fish species under Canada’s Species at Risk Act in
relation to the estimated cost of protection over 10 years for (a) marine fishes
(n¼21 taxa, coefficient¼ 2.77, SE ¼1.20, X2 ¼ 16.5), and (b) freshwater fishes
(n¼33 taxa, coefficient ¼ 2.28, SE¼ 1.12, X2 ¼8.17, p ¼0.004). Estimated fits from
the logistic regression are shown with 95% confidence intervals. The x-axis is on a
logarithmic scale and overlapping points are offset slightly for clarity.
species had different threshold costs for not being listed
( $90,000 per decade for marine species vs. $5,000,000 per
decade for freshwater species), with much greater certainty
surrounding the marine than the freshwater estimate. The specific issues raised qualitatively in the socio-economic assessments
to justify listing decisions for these two groups were also used
inconsistently. These results highlight a lack of transparency in
the way in which economic data and qualitative information are
generated and used in the SARA listing process.
Economics clearly trump biology in listing decisions about
fishes in Canada. In fact, any predicted cost was associated with
the rejection of listing recommendations for marine fish species,
while all marine species with no anticipated listing cost were
protected. Specific examples demonstrate the extent of this
pattern. Previous studies have highlighted the porbeagle shark,
Lamna nasus, as an example of a species that was not listed
despite a very low estimated economic impact of doing so
[11,13,14,29,30]. In the present study, the cost of listing the
porbeagle shark was $900 000–$1.75 million over a 10-year
period. The winter skate (L. ocellata, Georges Bank-Western
Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy population) was also not listed despite
an even lower estimated cost of $180,000 over 10 years [22]. In
contrast, two freshwater species, the lentic and lotic populations
of the Misty Lake threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus),
each carried a potential protection cost of $160,000–$2 million
over 10 years, and were nevertheless listed. A listing bias against
fish species was suggested in the early years of SARA [12], which
appeared to be associated with having the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as the responsible authority. The current
economic analysis suggests that this bias is ongoing, more
pronounced against marine than against freshwater fishes, and
not a DFO effect but an economic effect.
The qualitative factors cited in listing decisions also support the
existence of a bias against marine fishes. The same factor was often
cited in support of different listing outcomes for marine and
130
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
Listed
Not listed
Ma rine
75
25
0
75
F reshwate r
Percent of species
50
50
25
For
Against
Monitoring/research
Unlikely to recover
Existing management
Aboriginal
Hydroelectric
Coastal
Commercial
Bycatch
Recreational
For
Against
Insignificant cost
Significant cost
Benefit absent
Benefit present
Monitoring/research
Unlikely to recover
Existing management
Aboriginal
Hydroelectric
Coastal
Commercial
Bycatch
Recreational
C
o
st st/b
at e
em n
ef
Ex ent it
pl
oi
ta
D
tio
ev
n
el
op
m
en
Le
t
gi
sl
at
io
n
Pu Bio
lo
bl
g
ic
op y
in
io
C
n
os
st t/b
at e
em n
ef
Ex ent it
pl
oi
ta
D
tio
ev
n
el
op
m
en
Le
t
gi
sl
at
io
n
B
Pu
io
lo
bl
g
ic
op y
in
io
n
Insignificant cost
Significant cost
Benefit absent
Benefit present
0
Fig. 2. Socio-economic reasons and potential impacts cited in official governmental statements explaining listing decisions for fish taxa under the Canadian Species at Risk
Act. Bars show the percentage of marine fishes (top panels, n¼ 21 taxa), and freshwater fishes (bottom panels, n¼33 taxa) for which each reason was invoked separated by
listing outcome (listed: black; not listed: white). Totals exceed 100% because multiple reasons could be given in support of the decision for each taxon.
freshwater species. This was particularly evident in relation to
exploitation and existing management, which are discussed in
turn below.
Economic impacts on various forms of fisheries were cited more
often for marine than for freshwater fishes. This is not surprising at
least for directed commercial exploitation and bycatch, given the
relative values of marine ($447 million landed value) and freshwater
($60 million) fisheries in Canada [31]. However, while predicted
impacts on recreational fishing always resulted in not listing species
regardless of biome, mentions of impacts on commercial harvest
and bycatch were associated with listing most freshwater species
but not listing any marine species. Since commercial exploitation,
bycatch and recreational fishing are important threats to North
American fish populations [32,33], those species that are least likely
to be listed may also be those in greatest need of protection. In this
context, it seems ironic that fish species deemed unlikely to recover,
as was the case for one-quarter of marine species (Fig. 2) threatened
mainly by exploitation, were not afforded protection from their
main cause of decline.
Existing management was cited in many of the RIAS examined.
However, like exploitation, it led to different listing outcomes for
marine and freshwater fishes. For almost half of marine species
(but only two freshwater species), additional protection under
SARA was deemed not necessary because other management
legislation, such as fisheries restrictions, was already in place.
Thus, those (mainly marine) species were not listed. In contrast,
for almost half of freshwater species (but only two marine
species), it was argued that there would be little additional cost
of protection under SARA since protective measures already
existed under other legislation. These (mainly freshwater) species
were listed. Potential conflicts between protection and Aboriginal
use led to similarly inconsistent listing: all marine species for
which Aboriginal use was invoked were denied protection while
the majority of freshwater species important to Aboriginal people
were listed. It may be that prohibiting use of marine species
entails greater cultural costs to Aboriginal people than prohibiting
use of freshwater species. Nevertheless, this listing inconsistency
means that Aboriginal rights are respected in potential conflicts
with the protection of marine species, but not of freshwater
species.
Why is there such a marked bias against the protection of
marine fishes in Canada? A bias could arise if marine fishes cost
more to protect. The anticipated costs of protection were indeed
higher for marine fishes; hence, a greater proportion of marine
fishes might be expected not to be protected given a fixed
threshold cost of protection. However, this threshold is not fixed.
It is lower for marine species, making it even less likely that these
species will be listed. The root causes of bias may be a combination of politics and inadequate institutional capacity to implement marine protection. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is the
responsible authority for all fishes considered under SARA. However, while DFO has the sole responsibility for managing and
protecting marine fishes, it shares this responsibility with the
relevant provinces for freshwater fishes. Provincial governments
can put pressure on their federal counterpart to list taxa within
their boundaries. Perhaps more crucially, the provinces also share
the costs of planning and implementing protection. The listing of
freshwater species may therefore be a lesser financial and
capacity burden on DFO than the listing of marine species.
A cursory look at the threatened species listing process used in
other developed countries suggests that an emphasis on protection costs, to the near exclusion of information on threat status, is
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
probably not common. For example, in Australia [34] and New
Zealand [35], listing is based solely on threat status, which is
determined on the basis of internationally recognized criteria
(e.g., [36]), despite the opportunity given for public input, including lobbying based on economic concerns. The role of costs is
clearest in the US protection legislation. The Endangered Species
Act [37] specifically prohibits the consideration of economic
impacts in making species listing determinations. In fact, it has
been suggested that awareness of the costs of species protection
in the US led Canadian businesses to strongly oppose SARA when
it was proposed, three decades after the American legislation [38].
The result was a much more cost-conscious and discretionary
approach to wildlife protection in Canada.
In summary, there is a large emphasis on costs in Canadian
listing decisions, and marine and freshwater fish species are
currently assessed inconsistently in relation to the economic
impacts of protection. The current cost-focused approach has
three major flaws. First, it provides an incomplete accounting of
the potential impacts of conservation on Canadian society
because benefits are overlooked. These benefits can be considerable, as evidenced by studies of public willingness to pay to
recover threatened marine species (e.g., [39,40]). Second, because
cost estimates are provided early in the listing process, before
formulating a management plan or recovery strategy, they have
large but unacknowledged uncertainties [12]. Third, emphasis is
currently placed exclusively on short-term, regional impacts [11],
which magnifies immediate costs at the expense of longer-term
benefits. These flaws are currently preventing the listing of
imperilled marine fishes, whose continued declines make it
evident that conservation management solely through fisheries
legislation is insufficient. A cost-blind approach to conservation
decisions is not being advocated here. Indeed, a single-minded
focus on threat status rarely leads to cost-efficient actions (e.g.,
[41]). However, cost efficiency cannot be achieved with incomplete information. The changes required to the current process
entail inclusion of benefits in cost-benefit analyses, full transparency in accounting – including acknowledging implicit discount
rates, the use of thorough peer-review to match the intense
scrutiny of scientific assessments of species status, and public
availability – and clarity on how scientific and economic information are balanced. The result should be a more objective and
transparent process, which will improve the protection of Canadian fish biodiversity, both for its intrinsic and economic value.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to S. Anderson, C.S. Findlay and A. MacNeil for
statistical advice, A. Mooers and J. Reynolds for comments on the
manuscript, and J. Moore, R. Hitchmough and C. McAlpine for
explaining the listing process in their respective countries. Funding was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council
of Canada in the form of an Undergraduate Student Research
Award to J.A.S., a Canada Graduate Scholarship to E.S.D., and a
Discovery Grant to I.M.C.
References
[1] Limburg KE, Hughes RM, Jackson DC, Czech B. Human population increase,
economic growth, and fish conservation: collision course or savvy stewardship? Fisheries 2011;36:27–34.
[2] Fisheries and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The state of world fisheries and
aquaculture 2010. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations:
Rome; 2010. Available from /http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/
FI-CP_CA/enS.
[3] Mullon C, Fréon P, Cury P. The dynamics of collapse in world fisheries. Fish
Fish 2005;6:111–20.
131
[4] Pinsky ML, Jensen OP, Ricard D, Palumbi SR. Unexpected patterns of fisheries
collapse in the world’s oceans. PNAS 2011;108:8317–22.
[5] Crowder LB, Hazen EL, Avissar N, Bjorkland R, Latanich C, Ogburn MB. The
impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems and the transition to ecosystembased management. Annual reviews of ecology. Evol Syst 2008;39:259–78.
[6] Dulvy NK, Baum JK, Clarke S, Compagno LJV, Cortes E, Domingo A, et al. You
can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic
pelagic sharks and rays. Aquat Conserv 2008;18:459–82.
[7] Jenkins M. Prospects for biodiversity. Science 2003;302:1175–7.
[8] Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB. Extinction rates of North American freshwater
fauna. Conserv Biol 1999;13:1220–2.
[9] Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C,
et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation
challenges. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2006;81:163–82.
[10] Government of Canada (GoC). Species at Risk Act (SARA). Canada Gazette,
Part III 25 (31 January 2003): Chapter 29; 2003. Available from /http://www.
gazette.gc.ca/archives/p3/2003/g3-02503.pdfS. [accessed 1 May 2011].
[11] Mooers AO, Doak DF, Findlay CS, Green DM, Grouios C, Manne LL, et al.
Science, policy and species at risk in Canada. BioScience 2010;60:843–9.
[12] Findlay CS, Elgie S, Giles B, Burr L. Species listing under Canada’s species at
risk act. Conserv Biol 2009;23:1609–17.
[13] Hutchings JA, Marco FB. Canadian species at risk (2006–2008), with particular emphasis on fishes. Environ Rev 2009;17:53–65.
[14] Mooers AO, Prugh LR, Festa-Bianchet M, Hutchings JA. Biases in legal listing
under canadian endangered species legislation. Conserv Biol 2007;21:572–5.
[15] VanderZwaag DL, Hutchings JA. Canada’s marine species at risk: science
and law at the helm, but a sea of uncertainties. Ocean Dev Int Law
2005;36:219–59.
[16] Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
Instructions for the preparation of COSEWIC status reports; 2010. Available
from
/http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/htmldocuments/Instructions_e.html-1S,
[accessed 5 August 2011].
[17] Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
Status reports: guidelines for recognizing designable units; 2004. Available
from: /http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_5_e.cfmS. [accessed 25 July
2011].
[18] Hutchings JA, Marco FB. Scientific advice on species at risk: a comparative
analysis of status assessments of polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Environ Rev
2009;17:45–51.
[19] Government of Canada (GoC). Regulatory impact analysis statement. Canada
Gazette, Part II 139 (26 January 2005): 86–100; 2005.. Available from:
/http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-01-26/html/sor-dor
s14-eng.htmlS. [accessed 26 May 2011].
[20] GoC. Government of Canada (GoC). Regulatory impact analysis statement.
Canada Gazette, Part II (26 December 2007) 141(26): 2595–9; 2007. Available from /http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2007/2007-12-26/html/
sor-dors284-eng.htmlS. [accessed 12 May 2011].
[21] Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Socio-economic considerations to inform a decision whether or not to list three populations of
Atlantic cod under SARA: Discussion Document. Economic Analysis and
Statistics Policy Sector, DFO, Ottawa; 2005. Available from /http://www.
dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/reports-rapports/cod-morue/1-2-eng.htmS.
[accessed 16 June 2011].
[22] Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Potential socio-economic
implications of adding Eastern Scotian Shelf Winter Skate and Georges Bank–
Western Scotian Shelf–Bay of Fundy Winter Skate to the list of wildlife
species at risk in the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Policy and Economics
Branch–Maritimes Region, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; 2008. Available from
/http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/reports-rapports/skate-raie/
index-eng.htmS. [accessed 12 June 2011].
[23] Government of Canada (GoC). Order giving notice of decisions not to
add certain species to the list of endangered species. Canada Gazette,
Part II 140 (19 April 2006): 289–94; 2006. Available from /http://www.
gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2006/2006-04-19/html/si-tr61-eng.htmlS
[accessed 9 May 2011]
[24] Burnham KP, Anderson DA. Model selection and multimodel inference.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
[25] Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika
1993;80:27–38.
[26] Heinze G, Ploner M. Fixing the nonconvergence bug in logistic regression
with SPLUS and SAS. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2003;71:181–7.
[27] R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available
at /http://www.R-project.orgS; 2012.
[28] Heinze G, Schemper M. A permutation test for inference in logistic regression
with small- and moderate-sized data sets. Stat Med 2006;25:719.
[29] Powles H. Assessing risk of extinction of marine fishes in Canada-the
COSEWIC experience. Fisheries 2011;36:231–46.
[30] Rudd MA. National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada.
Endanger Species Res 2009;6:239–49.
[31] Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Canada’s wild fisheries:
Facts and figures; 2011. Available from /http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/
sustainable-durable/fisheries-peches/stats01/aqua-wf-ss-eng.htm-sumS;.
[accessed 11 September 2011].
[32] Cooke SJ, Cowx IG. The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises.
BioScience 2004;54:857–9.
132
J.A. Schultz et al. / Marine Policy 42 (2013) 125–132
[33] Venter O, Brodeur NN, Nemiroff L, Belland B, Dolinsek IJ. Grant JWA. Threats
to endangered species in Canada. BioScience 2006;56:903–10.
[34] Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act; 1999. /http://
www.environment.gov.au/epbc/S. [accessed on 13 January 2013].
[35] New Zealand Wildlife Act; 1953. /http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/
1953/0031/latest/whole.htmlS. [accessed on 13 January 2013].
[36] The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; 2012. /http://www.iucnredlist.
orgS. [accessed on 13 January 2013].
[37] United States Endangered Species Act 1973; 2013.. epw.senate.gov/
esa73.pdf. [accessed on 13 January 2013.
[38] Illical M, Harrison K. Protecting endangered species in the US and Canada:
the role of negative lesson drawing. Can J Polit Sci 2007;40:367–94.
[39] Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Olar M, West GE, Cantin G. Analysis of the
economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine
mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary. Mar Policy
2012;36:189–97.
[40] Richardson A, Loomis L. The total economic value of threatened, endangered
and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 2009;68:1535–48.
[41] Wilson HB, Joseph LN, Moore AL, Possingham HP. When should we save the
most endangered species? Ecol Lett 2011;14:886–90.