Download Improving the National Recovery Program in Canada

Improving the National Recovery Program in Canada
Cathy Merriman
Kent Prior
Endangered Species Program, World Wildlife Fund Canada
245 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 410, Toronto, ON, M4P 3J1, Canada
[email protected]
Endangered Species Division, Canadian Wildlife Service
Hull, PQ, K1A 0H3, Canada
ABSTRACT
Recovery planning at the national level for species at risk in Canada has been coordinated by RENEW (Recovery of
Nationally Endangered Wildlife) since 1988. To date, most of this work has focused on terrestrial vertebrates, and a
total of 19 recovery plans have been approved. Implementation of those plans has been supported by government
agencies and others, totalling $27 million over 10 years. One of the main national programs to support
implementation of recovery plans has been the Endangered Species Recovery Fund (ESRF), a partnership between
World Wildlife Fund-Canada (WWF-Canada) and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). As the list of species at risk
in Canada continues to grow, and as the time approaches when we will have federal species protection legislation
in place, we need to increase and improve our capacity to produce and implement recovery planning documents.
To that end, a national Recovery Working Group (RWG) has been formed and is developing a series of
recommendations that will form the basis of a new national recovery program. At the same time, WWF is supporting
the development of new, needed recovery plans that can test the proposed streamlined models for these plans.
Keywords: COSEWIC, private sector, recovery planning,
RENEW.
In 1988, Canada’s wildlife ministers established a committee
known as RENEW, or “Recovery of Nationally Endangered
Wildlife,” mandating the group to coordinate the recovery of
species at risk at the national level. The primary original
goal of RENEW was to coordinate recovery teams, who
would produce plans that outline recovery actions for
species listed by COSEWIC (the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada). The general goal of those
plans is to improve the conservation status of the species in
question. Working to increase public awareness of species
conservation issues in Canada has also been an important
goal of RENEW.
While RENEW’s mandate covers all species listed by
COSEWIC, the practical focus to date has been mainly on terrestrial vertebrates. Most of the plans produced so far concern
a single species, but the first multi-species and ecosystem
plans have now been initiated. For example, teams are working on a plan for the hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) and
the Acadian flycatcher (Empidonox virescens) in Ontario,
and another for the South Okanagan Valley ecosystem.
Since its formation, RENEW has approved 19 recovery
plans. Teams are currently in place for another 33 species.
The current COSEWIC list, however, contains approximately 100 species and populations with endangered or threatened status for which plans still need to be initiated. This is
a concern to many in the Canadian conservation community because the COSEWIC list will continue to grow. It is likely that federal species protection legislation to be introduced
later this year will include a requirement that recovery plans
be developed for endangered and threatened species within
relatively short time frames. Thus, the Canadian capacity to
produce such plans must be increased and improved.
RENEW recovery teams comprise government and nongovernment partners, in particular, scientific experts and relevant jurisdictions for the species in question. Some teams
also have private-sector stakeholders as members. This type
of membership seems likely to increase in the future for a
number of reasons, perhaps most importantly because many
types of recovery work will only succeed with the wholehearted acceptance and participation of people from many
sectors of society.
Various agencies and organizations have spent a total of
about $27 million on the preparation and implementation of
recovery plans. Recovery plans are intended to function as
practical guides to activities that are needed to help species
recover, thus it is important that government agencies and
others make the commitment to implement the plans once
they have been approved by RENEW. In many cases recovery
work is already underway by the time a plan is completed
and approved. While nationally-coordinated recovery planning and implementation have been going on for more than
10 years in Canada, actual successes are difficult to measure.
This is at least in part because species recovery itself is a
L. M. Darling, editor. 2000. Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15 - 19 Feb.,1999. Volume Two.
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 520pp.
939
MERRIMAN AND PRIOR
long-term process, often requiring substantial resource commitments and long timelines. Perhaps the best example of a
“success story” is the peregrine falcon. The national recovery
plan for the anatum subspecies has guided activities carried
out by many partners, and, after 2 decades, the peregrine is
making a comeback in many regions of Canada.
One of the largest national-level programs to support the
implementation of recovery plans has been the Endangered
Species Recovery Fund (ESRF). The ESRF has existed as a
partnership between World Wildlife Fund-Canada (WWFCanada) and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) since
1988. One of the strengths of the ESRF is its requirement
that grant recipients bring at least 50% of their project budget as matching funds, which means that the approximately
$3.5 million in grants disbursed over the years has contributed to at least $7 million in conservation activities. This
matching requirement is intended to foster broad partnerships in the conservation of species at risk and their habitats. The majority of ESRF support has been for
COSEWIC-listed species, especially endangered and threatened ones, but work on species in other categories may be
supported as well. Another strength of the ESRF is the independent scientific review that all proposals undergo. Projects
supported include elements of research, direct recovery actions, and public outreach. In 1998 and 1999 the number of
requests for support from the ESRF increased dramatically
compared to all previous years, and we expect that this trend
will continue.
In October 1996, Canada’s provinces and territories
agreed in principle to an “Accord for the Protection of
Species at Risk in Canada.” The accord encompasses commitment to measures such as complementary legislation and
programs to provide legal protection to species at risk and
their habitats. It also highlights the need for the development of preventative measures, including stewardship programs and recovery plans, and for an independent
assessment process for the listing of species. The accord was
developed partly in response to planned federal species protection legislation, and to address the recovery needs of the
growing number of species on the COSEWIC list.
Cooperation and harmonization among the jurisdictions will
be fundamental to the success of ongoing and future recovery work. Since the new federal legislation is expected to require the development of recovery plans, a system to ensure
that recovery plans are comparable across jurisdictions will
be an important element of Canadian conservation programs. The accord also states that the signatories will seek
guidance for implementation of the accord through an evolving national framework for species at risk.
That guidance was first sought at 2 meetings of national recovery team chairs in early 1998. At these brainstorming sessions, one in Regina and one in Toronto, recovery team chairs
raised many issues pertinent to improving the recovery
940
planning and implementation system in Canada. Among those
issues was a consensus that the species recovery system needs
to be more efficient, especially during the plan approval
phase. It was agreed that the emphasis needs to be on recovery actions rather than the formal planning phase. Recovery
team composition was discussed, especially regarding the future involvement of private-sector stakeholders on teams. In
the past this has not happened on most teams. Some feel that
this will be necessary to ensure general private sector acceptance of proposed recovery activities. Others feel that this will
compromise the conservation integrity of plans, and that
stakeholders should only be included at the implementation
stage. There was a general consensus among team chairs that
in future we need to focus more on coarse-scale conservation,
taking ecosystem and multiple-species approaches. Perhaps
the greatest consensus was that there is a shortage of resources, both financial and human, in Canada to adequately
address the recovery needs of species at risk.
Later in 1998 the wildlife directors struck the Recovery
Working Group (RWG), requesting that this group explore
options and make recommendations for improving the
Canadian recovery system. The RWG is composed of federal
jurisdictions (CWS; Department of Fisheries and Oceans),
provincial jurisdictions, and conservation non-government
organizations (WWF; Wildlife Habitat Canada). The group
will make specific, practical recommendations to the wildlife
directors, which they will then use to form the basis of a new
National Recovery Program
As a next step, Environment Canada hosted 2 stakeholder
workshops on federal species protection legislation and the
accord. The RWG held sessions focusing on the role of stakeholders in recovery planning and activities. Among others,
representatives of agricultural and livestock associations attended, as did aboriginal groups, resource users such as fishermen, and other industries. Those attending the meetings
expressed general acceptance of the principles that species recovery needs to be based first on good science and on meeting
the ecological requirements of species, then take into account
socio-economic factors. At the same time, many important
questions were discussed and not resolved during these meetings. These included concerns about incorporating traditional
ecological knowledge (TEK) into recovery planning, stakeholder participation in recovery teams, and methods for considering socio-economic needs relative to recovery planning.
The information generated at these different meetings
gave the Recovery Working Group a starting point to devise
recommendations for the operation of an improved recovery system. One of the main goals of the RWG is to develop
a template for a streamlined recovery plan model that will
facilitate the timely production of documents that will, in
turn, guide recovery activities for species that become listed
by COSEWIC. To do this the group must take into account
the strengths of the existing RENEW model and combine
Proc. Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15–19 Feb. 1999.
National Recovery Program in Canada
them with the means to address the restraints that will be
imposed on the process by time and financial limitations.
The group has formed 4 working groups, addressing the following principal issues:
• Priorities, among species at risk needing plans, and among
actions within plans.
• Planning and implementation, including the function and
structure of recovery teams. This group will also attempt
to develop tools and provide guidance for the production
of recovery plans and implementation schedules.
• Review, approval, and progress. This group will attempt to
devise a streamlined procedure for approving recovery
plans and schedules. They will also develop mechanisms
for evaluating recovery success and reporting to appropriate agencies.
• Funding requirements and sources. This may be one of
Proc. Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15–19 Feb. 1999.
the most important issues to address, because long-term
commitment of resources will be essential to the success
of any new recovery program in Canada.
As of this writing (March 1999), the Recovery Working
Group is still working on all of these elements of a new recovery program, and is open to input from all interested parties with experience in or concerns about these areas.
While this work is continuing, WWF has in the meantime
developed an opportunity to put the new, evolving model
into practice. Through a contribution from the federal
Millennium Bureau, WWF is offering financial support for the
development of recovery plans for species currently listed
but lacking recovery plans. In this way we hope to test some
of the new models being proposed and to help clear up some
of this “backlog” of listed species in need of more coordinated recovery work.
941
942
Proc. Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15–19 Feb. 1999.