“Risk Assessment” – Conservation Committee

During November-December 2003, Environment Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia convened a group of Conservation Experts to examine the assumption (Beson 1998) that a continuous human presence is necessary to meet conservation objectives on Sable Island. The conclusions of the Conservation Team were used to produce a report for consideration by Senior Officials in Environment Canada, Coast Guard and Fisheries & Oceans, and the Government of Nova Scotia.

The Team concentrated its efforts on analyzing the risks and benefits to the Island’s habitats, flora, and fauna resulting from human presence. As directed, this assessment addressed only biological and ecological concerns, and did not consider the effects that Station closure would have on the many research and monitoring programs, or on safety and security. The main conclusions of the Conservation Team can be summarized as follows. The group generally agreed that the biodiversity, cultural and economic values of Sable Island are all important, and that the best way to secure and conserve the Island, and its values, is to continue to have people on the island throughout the year. Ongoing commitment to and investment in the human presence on the Island is the most effective way to ensure that conservation issues are addressed in a direct and effective manner.

The Team concluded that anything less than a continuous human presence would compromise the ability to achieve conservation objectives. Seasonal presence (e.g. placing wardens or researchers on the Island during the summer) is not sufficient because various ecosystem components are at risk during different seasons. No single season would protect all ecosystem components from potential threats. The Team believed that a continuous human presence is necessary to monitor and prevent vandalism, looting, harassment, taking and killing of wildlife, and removal of heritage artifacts and other property by the general public. Given Sable Island's fragile ecosystem (particularly its dunes, grasslands, freshwater lens and ponds), any unauthorized and uncontrolled visits are considered to carry a risk of causing potentially serious and irreversible damage to the ecosystem and its components. It was also suggested that the risks of unsupervised visitation and vandalism are heightened by the mystique and allure of Sable Island within the public realm (i.e. there is an interest in visiting or obtaining artifacts from Sable Island because of its remoteness and cultural history).

The Team reached a consensus that the assumption in the Conservation Strategy (Beson 1998) remains valid that: “conservation objectives can be best realised if a permanent [continuous] human presence is maintained on Sable Island.” A majority of Team members (seven of eleven) felt that meeting the conservation objectives absolutely requires a continuous human presence and therefore meeting the conservation objectives can only be met if there is a continuous human presence on the Island. It is important to note that this was the unanimous conclusion of all Team members (seven of eleven) who had experience on Sable Island.

Reference: Beson, K. 1998. A conservation strategy for Sable Island. Prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada Atlantic Region, March 1998, 50 pages.