www.salmonguy.org

Please come for a visit and see all the latest posts.

From the mouth near present-day Vancouver to the upper reaches around Takla Lake, Valemount, and other headwater areas there was a pretty simple principle at work – catch too many salmon and die (or have to move to another territory). Somehow the amazing number of nations on many of these rivers had a system for making sure salmon made it upstream to neighbors and upstream to spawning grounds.

When I worked in the Yukon in the early 2000s I learned about an impressive system that made sure that over 90 different nations were able to access salmon along the over 2700 km Yukon River. In the present day, the Yukon River Panel with reps from the U.S. and Canada are working every year on making sure that salmon runs make it upstream.

80% of the salmon spawn in Canada (in the Yukon Territory), however, for many years over 80% of the salmon were being caught in the U.S. in Alaska.

Now, everyone along the river is attempting to figure these issues out. Salmon runs have declined, open sea fisheries are largely closed, and so many people – First Nation or not – depend on salmon every year for things like dog teams, an essential form of transport. There’s also a very unique chum salmon run that fights upstream to near the community of Teslin – an over 2700 km journey.

It’s not an easy process – however, a pretty amazing amount of people try and work through the issues.

In trying to read the MSC reports, it is suggested that this certification process was the longest the organization has been involved in at over nine years as the process:

has required all parties engaged in the process (i.e clients, DFO, First Nation and ENGO stakeholders, the assessment team members and the certification companies), to constantly backtrack and review the preceding certification step and its results in order to proceed to the next assessment task. [pg. 1]

In addition, there was:

a vast amount of information provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the client, environmental, conservation and First Nation stakeholder groups. [pg. 3]

I was curious what some of the First Nation input was – especially in light of the complex legal environment that surrounds aboriginal rights and title (treaty rights with the Nisga’a on the Nass River) and B.C. fisheries. And the very strong emotions that surround salmon fisheries for most First Nations people.

I read, and read, and read – ok, maybe skimmed at times – and not until page 68 of the report does the report state:

SCS [Science Certification Systems, Inc. the company that conducted the certification process] made a significant effort (through emails, faxes, couriered packages, and phone calls) to both contact and speak directly with First Nations organizations associated with the fishing and fisheries management of salmon in British Columbia, Canada. Although these efforts were made, SCS was unable to gain any traction with First Nations.

And, in fact, pretty much the only communication with First Nations was a meeting “in the interest of efficiency” between one member of the review team with three groups in a series of three meetings over a one month period in 2005.

One, maybe don’t run off about how First Nations were involved in the nine year process in the opening pages of the reports – if in fact there was only three meetings in 2005 with specific Nations.

Two, there is a legally mandated principle of “meaningful consultation” with First Nations in Canada. A few years ago the logging Weyerhaeuser learned an important lesson about how phone calls (or faxes, or emails) were not considered “meaningful consultation” when dealing with the Council of the Haida Nation on Haida Gwaii.

I’m not suggesting that the Marine Stewardship Council has engaged in a process that requires “meaningful consultation” as the Canadian courts have attempted to describe it – however, Fisheries and Oceans the federal ministry that engaged heavily in this process and has a “five year action plan” to meet conditional MSC certification – does.

Any thoughts?

It’s a bit of a slog – but I’ve come up with some ideas…

Here’s a suggestion for awarding  first aid certificates. Just give applicants certifications – it’ll be good for the economy, as more people will have this extra certification to market themselves.  They will most likely get paid a few more dollars an hour. These extra wages will get pumped back into local economies.

It’ll be good for everyone.

Now, for quality control purposes we can just give the certificate with conditions. And, for simplicity sake, let’s give the certificate holder five years to meet those conditions. These would be conditions such as:

• condition 1: demonstrate to the certifying agency (Workers Compensation) that one has secured a CPR ticket within two years
• condition 2: by the end of year, demonstrate to agency that one knows the difference between major bleeding head wound and minor abrasion
• (and so on)

In the meantime, here’s your conditional certificate.

Or, let us institute a new drivers license program. Every 16-year old applicant gets their certificate to drive. Why wait and test to see if they can meet conditions? That will just delay their ability to market themselves for better jobs, or drive themselves to school, or other economic benefits.

It’ll be great for the economy.

What you drove mom’s car into a telephone pole? … ah, just enroll in driver training and report back to us next year.

What you bounced a pedestrian off your windshield… in a school zone?… ah, just show us by next year that you can drive 30 km/hr in school zones. (Or in the words of fisheries management: demonstrate to us that you know how to operate under a “Limit Reference Point”)

What this is your ninth speeding ticket this month?… ah, just demonstrate to us in your five year action plan that you’ll figure this out.

(Or, in the words of fisheries management: demonstrate to us that you know how to operate within a “reference points for conservation”… like conservation of school-age children in school zones – that’s the point of the 30 km/hr limit isn’t it?)

Ok, so what do these new certification schemes have to do with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and BC sockeye fisheries. Well… this past week the MSC, a London, UK based organization, announced that they are about to certify four BC sockeye fisheries.

Now the catch to this international “eco-certification” is that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has to meet approximately 40 conditions – which are conditions that fell below a 80% “scoring guidepost”. Like a driver’s test, or a financial planner exam, or first aid attendant exam – or other tests that have a ‘passing’ limit above 50%.

To meet conditions below the MSC “guidepost”, DFO has outlined a “Five Year Action Plan”.

Conditions related to these criteria must be met within a 5-year period.

But please do not be concerned as in the first few paragraphs of  Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)  “Five Year Action Plan” submitted to the MSC they state:

It is important to note that implementation of the following action plan assumes there will be no requirement for additional departmental resources. However, as we initiate implementation of the action plan, we may discover that this assumption was flawed and a re-evaluation of the original assumption is required.

Yes, good recovery in that last sentence. I often use this logic when I’m trying to explain to the bank about my loan payments….

And what are some of the conditions that DFO is going to meet?

fully implement ‘Strategy 1’ of our WSP [Wild Salmon Policy]. ‘Strategy 1’ of the WSP requires standardized monitoring of wild salmon status, including identification of upper and lower benchmarks to represent biological status and guide harvest decisions.

(Well, thank goodness for full implementation – as it’s only been five years since the Wild Salmon Policy came into force.)

So, this is where ‘speed limits’ come into play – or Limit Reference Points (LRPs), or “benchmarks” as quoted above.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) describes fisheries LRPs as:

the maximum values of fishing mortality or minimum values of the biomass, which must not be exceeded. Otherwise, it is considered that it might endanger the capacity of self-renewal of the stock.

In other words if you kill too many fish you might wipe out the run.

So, for a layperson such as me – I’m gathering these are pretty damn important numbers to know before one opens a fishery. Now what DFO has promised to the Marine Stewardship Council is that:

Condition 6

Certification is conditional until the Conservation Units have been defined for Fraser sockeye … and LRP’s for each Fraser sockeye conservation unit are defined and peer reviewed.

Condition 11

Certification will be conditional until a LRP has been defined for Henderson Lake and there is no significant scientific disagreement regarding this LRP.

Condition 16

Certification will be conditional until LRP’s have been defined for each of the Nass sockeye stocks targeted in the fisheries for Nass sockeye.

Condition 19

Certification will be conditional until Limit Reference Points or their equivalent have been defined for Fraser sockeye salmon stocks, and recovery plans have been developed and implemented for stocks harvested in Fraser sockeye fisheries that are below their LRP. The proposed recovery plans must provide information regarding the probability of recovery and the timing for recovery.

OK, am I reading this right?

Basically, what I see is:

DFO here’s your license to drive (i.e. MSC certification) and over the next five years you can demonstrate to us that you know what speed limits are – oh, and what the hell, you can set the speed limits if you like….

A couple days ago, the MSC announced it has made a “determination” that B.C. sockeye fisheries should be certified within the MSC principles – or in other words that these fisheries are “sustainable” and should be labeled as such in the marketplace.

Note that this includes the sockeye fishery on the Fraser of which a judicial inquiry has been launched to try and find out why only 10% of predicted sockeye returned this year.

After a 15-day “objection period” for folks to submit objections, the fisheries can then be certified by MSC.

Needless to say, there are some significant objections to this imminent certification. Some of these can be read in Mark Hume’s Globe and Mail article from the other day – comments such as ‘green washing’ and ‘eco-fraud’ seem common.

The main office for MSC is based in London, UK with satellite offices around the world including Seattle, WA.

The MSC’s fishery certification program and seafood ecolabel recognise and reward sustainable fishing. We are a global organisation working with fisheries, seafood companies, scientists, conservation groups and the public to promote the best environmental choice in seafood.

By getting MSC certification various fisheries can then apply the MSC label to their products (similar to the dolphin-friendly label on tuna, or fair trade coffee). The apparent advantage to being certified is:

Being part of the MSC program will set you apart from competitors and give your company a selling point to win new markets. Just as importantly, it will ensure that the seafood you are offering to customers today will continue to be available in future, and your company will have switched towards a sustainable business model.

I’ll be straight-up, I was rather confused in reading the headlines that a fishery, that wasn’t actually a fishery this year, could be certified as sustainable. On the Fraser River, over 10 million sockeye were predicted to return – about 1 million made it back. Basically, every fishery was shut down.

But, say, I guess a non-fishery is sustainable right?

Kind of like the passenger-pigeon hunt last year in Alabama… Or the dodo clubbing festival in the South Pacific last month…

In the case of certifying the Skeena sockeye fishery as “sustainable” – I don’t really see a difference between this and say an Alberta elk or bison farmer inviting American big-game hunters on to their farm, pulling the farm tags from the ears, and calling it eco-friendly, “sustainable hunting.”

Or, just let big game hunters loose on the streets of  Jasper, AB where one has to be careful walking at night so as not to get in the way of a “rutting” elk (i.e. not much difference than closing time at a dance bar…).

The only difference is that at least, wild elk and bison wouldn’t get caught in the crossfire.  The bulk of the sockeye caught in the Skeena fisheries are either hatchery raised, or a product of “enhanced” habitat in the Babine area. Only problem, is that schools of salmon don’t travel segregated by hatchery fish or wild fish. Or, even by different species. Thus, endangered steelhead are often caught as by-catch in sockeye fisheries – as well as endangered wild sockeye that may be from a different area than the hatchery-enhanced sockeye.

I suppose maybe we can start inviting Americans from the east coast and get them to troll in a Broughton Archipelago fish farm:

“Look, Homer, why fish east coast rivers when you can come out here and catch atlantic salmon on every cast?”

(now, that’s a sustainable fishery).

Ok, rants and riffs aside. I figured I’d start to dig a little further to at least try and learn how and why these sockeye fisheries are poised to be certified as eco-friendly and sustainable. Or, what I might need to do to lodge an “objection” within the 15-day MSC objection period. I read the executive summary of the report and it states:

Readers should note that in order to appropriately review this report, it is critical to review this report concurrently with other documents, particularly the information submission which was prepared by DFO to respond to the performance indicators which were developed by the Assessment Team to evaluate the fishery.

Only problem: there are 3 Volumes of reports. Total pages: 542.

Furthermore, if I want to lodge an objection – there are only two very specific items that I can comment on.

Lastly, in big letters and a page unto itself on the MSC website is an entire section on “Credibility“:

The MSC is committed to being the world’s leading certification program for sustainable wild-capture seafood. We seek to deliver a robust, effective and accessible certification program that keeps up with the latest scientific knowledge and industry practices.

Ok, yup. And better yet:

How we meet best practice

The MSC program enables consumers and seafood buyers around the world to make the best environmental choice in seafood. Underpinned by best practice guidelines for ecolabelling and certification, we follow international, professional benchmarks to promote robust processes and uphold our values of independence, transparency, impartiality and stakeholder consultation.

If you haven’t read my previous posts on Bumpf – please visit that category.

Please note: (humble opinion here) MSC, if you want credibility don’t hide behind empty bumpf words, or, thousands of pages of data.

Credibility is one of those things like trust: you can’t state it, or demand it, YOU EARN IT.

And the difficult lesson that ‘certifying’ bodies, and corporations, learn is that once you earn it – boy, is it easy to completely lose it in a couple of bad decisions.

These programs are also kind of like blogs of which there are apparently 80,000 new ones a day. Like blogs, underwear serves decent functions – but like some kinds of underwear damaging if worn too often: think briefs; wear them too often fellows and your ability to spawn is in jeopardy…

In recent years there has been an explosion of environmental certification and “eco-labeling” programs. Things like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that apparently certifies wood from sustainable and environmentally and socially responsible logging operations,  Leadership in Environmental Design (LEED) green building standards, Fair trade products (e.g. coffee, cotton, etc.), dolphin-friendly tuna, and so on.

These programs are supposed give power back to consumers so as to make responsible purchasing choices (i.e. “vote through the marketplace” and “vote through your wallet”) – and to promote environmental responsibility within various industries and specific companies. So, for example, buying FSC-certified wood is supposed to make a consumer feel good that they are supporting environmentally and socially responsible business practices. Some lumber stores sell only FSC-certified wood, putting themselves in the upper echelon of “green businesses”.

Many of these programs are voluntary for companies to pursue and maintain certification. The organizations handing out certifications are apparently unbiased, objective, and free from outside influence.

But, yet, like your favorite underwear they get worn out, frayed, and sometimes just down right soiled. And sometimes, those outside influences suggest maybe you should just throw those away now…. or when the wash is done, those favorite underwear have simply not returned – and we have to go out and get a new pair. You know, organic cotton, fairly trade, fairly made ones that don’t ride up the…

How many animals of each kind did Moses take on the ark?

Think about that for a second…  is your answer “two”.

If it is you’re wrong. Read the question again and think about it.

Think again about who loaded the ark – it wasn’t Moses, it was Noah.

The Kaplans raise this question in their book: Bozo Sapiens: Why to Err is Human.  As they suggest, to look at one thing is to become blind to everything else. They highlight a study where observers watch a basketball game and are told to count how many passes one team makes and not the other. Concentrating on the task, the majority of viewers will miss the gorilla mascot walking across the court and briefly stopping in front of the camera.

…looking is an active, selective process, involving choice of objects, assessment of surprise, direction of attention, and division of the world into Important and Invisible. So it’s not surprising that our opinions can shape not just what we think but also what we see.

Think about the classic example of buying a new car and then all of a sudden you start seeing those cars everywhere – maybe even feeling some affiliation. Marketers know this, they prey upon it. Why do you think Harley Davidson owners are almost like a cult group among North American yuppies? Or, why the Austin Mini had a huge resurgence after featuring in a James Bond movie or two….

Certainly our mistakes generally err toward the self-serving whether it’s a case of researchers “finding” that the data fits the curve or taxpayers discovering that they magically owe the government less that they’d thought. These aren’t necessarily lies – just accurate reports from a parallel, more desirable universe, which suggests why people caught out in them are so often sincere in their protestations of innocence. But the world doesn’t know how we want it to be, so why do we cling to self-serving conclusions in the face of conflicting evidence?

Simple: once we have a conclusion we don’t see the evidence, or we downgrade it – whether it’s a smoker telling you his chimney of a grandmother lived to be ninety-nine or an oil company executive telling you that climate-change science is “flawed”.

Let me throw a rather stunning piece of evidence that rings in my ears – the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has been reporting for years:

over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems.

Could some of this be a case of a few too many fisheries researchers and managers, government ministers and others: “finding that the data fits the curve”?

For example, that operating on the principle devised for farming crops – maximum sustained yield (MSY) – is highly, highly flawed. In salmon “management” the principle of MSY has dictated that salmon fisheries can catch/kill 80% of a run and that the remaining 20% will make it upstream, feed the ecosystem and successfully spawn the  next generation – which can then be depleted by 80%, and so on, and so on…

Downgrading the evidence… is that what the Kaplans called it?

Or salmon-colored glasses, or to be entirely truthful – I think we could say that salmon “management” has been through rather thick human-colored glasses.

First, from Mark Rovner (pg 66):

Heart – engage your community from a place of
passion and compassion. Facts matter less.

Simplicity – if you can’t tell your brand story to a 9-
year-old it’s no good.

Story – the root of all.

And from Aaron Walls (pg 58):

Ignorance can be an advantage, and feedback an
incredibly useful tool. It allows you to share the
journey, which helps make writing accessible to beginners. And it allows you the courage to do things you would not do if you waited until you already knew everything, especially because as you learn more, you learn how much you don’t know.

My hope would be that folks engaged in wild salmon discussions could really ponder this diagram. Unfortunately, a lot of the discussion that shapes “policy” and “salmon management” has been at the last two steps of this triangle – and yet – exactly as stated – as we learn more, we learn how much we don’t know.

This will never change when it comes to natural systems… So what do we do in the meantime?

Why not empower the whole diagram?

If I can’t explain a wild salmon policy to a 9-year old – a.k.a. “beginner” (of which I will have two in less than six years) – it’s no good.

verbal junk food, providing satisfaction without nourishment.

It’s from Michael and Ellen Kaplan’s  book Bozo Sapiens: Why to err is human.

Here is one of their examples from the business world:

“Going forward, we proactively accelerate our balance sheet through bottom-up empowerment in strategic alliances”

“…the authors presumably had some vague ‘truth’ in mind: there was something they meant to say but only they know what it is.

The second innovation, well defined by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, is bullshit – that is, a statement whose author has no interest in whether it’s true or not, nor even whether it is taken to be true. It’s just a warm pile of words, used to soothe opposition, enhance the speaker’s image, or point out his allegiance to some generic good cause – offering hearers the emotional component of thought without troublesome meaning; verbal junk food, providing satisfaction without nourishment.”

In some of my early posts I have pointed to some language issues in the wild salmon discussion and debates – such as bullshit bumpf, bafflegab, and the likes. As one person has commented on one of my posts, “language is meant to communicate not to confuse.”

Or, as I quoted Alan Webber from his book in a previous post:

If you think learning your vocabulary words doesn’t make a difference, try going into a store and asking for toilet paper when you only know the word for sandpaper

-Webber’s highschool German teacher Roy Battenberg

Now several of my posts have pointed to language used by bureaucracies such as Fisheries and Oceans and specifically, the “warm pile of words, used to soothe opposition” that make up the Wild Salmon Policy.Yet, advocacy organizations are just as guilty. The problem that arises is that the language has become such junk food that it’s like looking for dinner when you’re only option is going to a 7-11 corner store. Junk food is all there is.

Here are some examples from wild salmon-related reports I downloaded off a major British Columbia environmental organization website (David Suzuki Foundation) of which the title to the paper is a mouthful in itself: “Knowledge integration in salmon conservation and sustainability planning“.

Escalated dysfunction and compromised success can be avoided if variations in ways of knowing are mutually acknowledged and understood.

Is this a tag line for Viagra or Cialis?

Or, is this statement suggesting exactly what I have been raising in various posts – language and words matter. For example, if we bat around words like “conservation” or “sustainability” or “stewardship” – there will many different ways of ‘understanding’ what those words mean.

Say for example in the tar sands operations of Alberta. All three of those words are going to have very different meanings to:

• a Suncor executive,
• a Fort Chipewyan elder, and
• a Greenpeace campaigner.

Does this mean that if these three individuals “mutually acknowledge” the “variations in ways of knowing and understanding” that we will avoid erec… er…  “escalated dysfunction and compromised success”?

And could you imagine using this type of language in a kindergarten class? “Now kids you are compromising our success because of our escalated dysfunction in arriving at mutual acknowledgement”

Or even at a standard workplace where conflict often happens?

(And please, I mean no disrespect towards the authors or organizations highlighted in posts – simply attempting to be hard on the problem, not the people – and it’s only fair to try and spread that focus around).

First, in the early part of Howe’s book he introduces Proctor & Gamble’s “innovation community”. In the mid-2000s, faced with slumping sales and stock price (i.e. stock had lost 50% of its values or $75 billion in market cap). The P&G board hired a new CEO who created a program called “Connect and Develop”. The main goal of this initiative was to raise the percentage of new products developed from outside of the company (yes, outside) – from 15% to 50% by 2007.

At the time, P&G had 8,500 researchers on staff – and yet they figured there was probably another 1.5 million similar researchers with pertinent expertise such as retired staff, and other folks from around the world. The new CEO, A.G. Lafley helped create YourEncore a website that would “tap the collective brainpower of scientists around the world.” Another drug multinational Eli Lilly was also involved and Boeing signed on in the first year.

These companies post various ‘problems’ or issues on the site and the network of outside scientists and engineers tackle the problem. P&G managed to regain all of its lost stock price and tripled net profits to over $10 billion in 2007.

Another similar network of scientists and engineers was created by Eli Lilly – InnoCentive. This is a network of over 140,000 scientists and engineers from over 170 countries. Various problems are posted on the website with a cash reward. For example, the most recent problem posted is to try and find a solution to insects damaging maize corn – the cash reward is $20,000. And, it’s not even the actual solution it just hast to be a proposal.

The really crazy part about InnoCentive is that so many of the “scientists” involved are folks with jerry-rigged backyard labs. Howe tells a great story about Ed Melcarek who runs Kelly’s Auto Body in Barrie, Ontario. Ed is one InnoCentive’s most succesful problem-solvers and he does it from a one bedroom “lab” above his shop, cigarette between his lips, and “attacks problems that have stumped some of the best corporate scientists at Fortune 500 companies.”

One of his easier ‘solutions’… $25,000 for figuring out how to inject fluoride powder into a toothpaste tube without the fluoride dispersing into the surrounding air. He knew his solution before even finishing reading the problem – charge the fluoride particles electrically so that they would be attracted to the tube.

OK… so this is not a post promoting any of the multi-national drug companies, however, if some of the biggest companies on the planet can come up with some pretty darn innovative ideas; why are some our larger government bureaucracies lagging miserably?

Any thoughts?