Download biodiversity

BIODIVERSITY
Endangered Species Policy Reform
Introduction




Canada is one of the largest countries in the world, and is one of the few places left in the world that
still contains large natural ecosystems. The variety of natural ecosystems and species that inhabit
them is mainly due to the fact that the pristine environment that does exist is untouched by human
action. To ensure that this legacy continues, that Canada can preserve its natural environment,
effective policies must ensure that this occurs. Endangered species legislation is so vital because it is
endangered species legislation that helps to protect species from becoming extinct.
According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, there are currently 516
plant and animal species at risk in Canada...Another 13 species are already extinct.[1]
Our ecosystem is a balance of species, and to interrupt that balance could cause severe implications
to our environment. Also species once extinct can not be replaced, and their intrinsic value is infinite.
Specific human centered reasons for protecting wildlife species also exist such as ecosystem benefits,
to maintain healthy ecological functions and processes; recreational, economic and aesthetic benefits,
wildlife based activity such as eco-tourism is a growing industry that provides numerous social,
cultural and aesthetic values; food and medicine; and ethics, the human species does not have the
moral right to cause the extinction of another species.
[1] Government of Canada, Environment Canada, Human Canadian Wildlife Service, Species at Risk
Branch, Species at Risk, 14 Feb 06, 4 Jun 06www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/default_e.cfm
Causes of Extinction


Extinction can occur naturally however the
vast majority of the causes leading to
species extinction come from human
intervention on the planet.
Human beings have caused
•
•
•
•
•



habitat destruction and degradation (loss of
wetlands, grasslands, old growth forests)
resource exploitation (hunting and poaching,
illegal trade)
incompatible land use and development (road
construction, urban sprawl)
climate change (excessive carbon emissions)
toxic pollution (bioaccumulation of persistent
contaminants)
Endangered species can not defend
themselves from human intervention. Only
the actions of human beings can help to
ensure their survival. Therefore it is so
important for effective legislation to exist.
Much of the wildlife currently in existence is
attributed to earlier wildlife policies. As
well many depleted wildlife populations
have been restored and habitats protected
with the aid of wildlife rehabilitation plans
and capture, breeding and release
programs.
Current governmental policy is making
strides to ensure endangered species are
protected. However the government is
being called upon by society to take further
action to improve the current policies.
Background: Endangered Species
Legislation


The federal government of Canada has been developing various laws and policies
intended to protect wildlife. Canada has enacted the National Parks Act, the Wild
Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade
Act, and the Canada Wildlife Act. Similarly, Canada played a key role at the 1992 Rio
Earth Summit in drafting and adopting the Convention on Biological Diversity, which
Canada subsequently ratified. The Convention states that it requires Canada (and
other signatories) to “as far as possible and as appropriate, develop and maintain
necessary legislation…for the protection of threatened species and populations.” In
1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment considered
Canada’s obligations under the Convention, and concluded that the absence of
federal endangered species legislation had to be addressed by Parliament. The
Standing Committee further recommended that “the Government of Canada, working
with the provinces and territories…take immediate steps to develop an integrated
legislative approach to the protection of endangered species, habitat, ecosystems
and biodiversity in Canada.”[1]
[1] Standing Committee on Environment, A Global Partnership:Canada and the
Conventions of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(April 1993), p30.
Species At Risk Act




The early history of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) encountered difficulties in
becoming law. It was first introduced as Bill C-5 in 2001, and died on the table, later
re-introduced in 2002, and finally made law in 2003 as Bill C-29. Previous to this
were, Bill C-33 the Species at Risk Act, called in 2000 and died on the order paper in
2001 and Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act (CESPA) called
in 1996 and died on the order paper in 1997.
Two new recitals would be added to the Preamble in Bill C-5. One, which would be
the 11th recital, would recognize that sometimes the cost of conserving species at
risk should be shared. Another new recital, which would be the second-last one,
would recognize that the habitat of species at risk is key to their conservation. Both
of these additions reflect suggestions made by some witnesses who commented on
Bill C-33.[2]
As the bill went through its stages of development, to become Bill C-29 Species at
Risk Act, it was further improved for the betterment of protecting endangered species
in Canada.
[2] Douglas, Kristen, Law and Government Division, Parliamentary Research Branch,
Government of Canada, Legislative Summary (LS-438E) “Bill C-5: The Species at
Risk Act” Online posting, 10 Oct 02, 4 Jun 06
<http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/the_act/legislative_summary_e.pdf>
Federal & Provincial Responsibility


Furthermore the Canadian government through its legislation does not
specifically designate the responsibility of endangered species to either
federal or provincial governments. This causes a problem with protecting
species at risk because without this designation there is no accountability,
since no one government office is responsible if a species becomes extinct.
There are also problems with ensuring that proper legislation is put into
place because of this lack of accountability, and more time is taken to
ensure that a species is protected because there is no automatic action
that is taken since there is no specific government in charge of the
situation. It becomes a public concern, and until citizens, scientists, and
organizations get involved and are able to pressure the government no
action is taken and this is a great risk for the endangered species.
Although the responsibility of endangered species is not specifically
designated to either the federal or provincial governments, legislative
jurisdiction over wildlife species rests primarily with the provinces,
according to the Constitution Act. However many critics argue that
endangered species legislation should fall under federal responsibility
because,




There is a persuasive argument to be made that the Parliament of Canada
has sufficient competence under the “national dimension” facet of its
“P.O.G.G.[peace, order and good government] power” (including the
“treaty power”, however interpreted) to exercise jurisdiction over all
aspects of endangered species protection.[3]
Most provincial governments have specific endangered species laws;
however they are neither comprehensive nor consistent.
Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, for example, contains a number of
flaws and loopholes typical of provincial species legislation, such as: the
listing process is slow, bureaucratic, and highly discretionary, which has
resulted in only a small number of flora and fauna being designated at
“threatened with extinction”…recovery plans are not mandatory for the
relatively few species that have been officially declared to be “threatened
with extinction”; the legislation does not require any comprehensive
assessments of projects or undertakings that may impact species at risk
or their habitat; and the enforcement of the Act’s prohibitions has been
sporadic and ineffective over the past four decades.[4]
[4] Lindgren, Richard D. The Species at Risk Act: An Overview: Report
No.408.Online Posting. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association,
25 Sept 01, p.10 <www.cela.ca>
Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada


The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was
created in 1977 as the single, official, scientifically based, national classification of
wildlife organization for species at risk in Canada. Its role is to assess the
conservation status of species that may be at risk and report the results of its
assessment to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC), the
government of Canada and the Canadian population. In so doing it aims to ensure
that endangered species are recognized and protected from extinction. Its
assessment process is independent, transparent and uses a multifaceted approach,
using scientific, Aboriginal and community knowledge to assess species.
Currently COSEWIC consists of thirty members from each of the thirteen provincial
and territorial government wildlife agencies. The members of COSEWIC are
university academics, independent specialists, Aboriginal peoples or government, and
scientists. COSEWIC has always had the power to designate species on an
emergency basis. In June 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) established
COSEWIC as an advisory body. Under SARA, the government of Canada will take
into consideration COSEWIC’s designations when establishing the legal list of species
at risk. An important yearly publication is made by COSEWIC to deliver its research
information including identifying species at risk.
Environmental Non-Governmental
Organizations


Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) are those devoted to
protecting the environment but are not affiliated to the government. Endangered
species have numerous ENGOs working on their behalf. Some of the most notable
ENGOs in Canada include the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and the
Sierra Club of Canada.
IFAW was established to fight against the killing of harp and hood seals for
commercial use. It has since expanded to include a wide range of animals. It fights
against commercial exploitation and illegal trade and the destruction of wilderness
habitat, and participates in rescuing animals in distress. IFAW’s mission includes the
prevention of animal cruelty (through cosmetic testing and pet abuse) and the
creation of an emergency relief team to rescue animals after natural and man-made
disasters. The organization focuses on a partnership structure to implement its
policies IFAW works closely with government departments, other ENGOs, and the
public. Some of its projects include whaling, illegal trade of African elephant parts.
And IFAW concentrates largely on research projects.





The Sierra Club of Canada focuses on loss of animal and plant species. It
promotes energy efficiency, protects forests from clear-cutting, and conserves
biodiversity.
In the area of endangered species protection the Sierra Club helped to form the
Canadian Coalition of Biodiversity and the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition
with other national conservation organizations.[1]
In 1997, the Sierra Club waged a petition campaign to the Ministry of Environment to
Endangered Species Bill – 65 (which eventually died). The fact that ENGOs are able
to accomplish so much with their influence, by creating and making changes in
legislation indicates that ENGOs make an important impact on environmental policy.
While some ENGOs function on a regional basis and are concerned with specific
habitat areas or provincial jurisdictions. For example the Manitoba Wildlife
Federation is the oldest conservation group in that province. Like other federations,
it has local affiliate clubs of hunters, anglers and naturalists throughout the province.
The federation is a charitable organization and founded the MWF Habitat Found Inc.
to collect monetary and land donations to help preserve natural areas. Land owners
can contribute toward preserving wildlife while retaining their land title.
[1] Dwivedi, O.P., Kyba, J.P., Stoett, P., Tiessen, R., Eds. Sustainable Development
and Canada: National and International Policy Perspectives. Peterborough: Broadview
Press, 2001, p.95.
Case Studies : Habitat Protection





As drafted, SARA does not confer mandatory protection of
habitat for any species at risk, unless Cabinet makes a
discretionary decision to designate and protect a particular
species’ “critical habitat” on a case-by-case basis…Even if
Cabinet was inclined to make such an order for a particular
species, there are no timelines prescribed by SARA for the
identification of critical habitat, and recovery strategies and
action plans are only required to identify critical habitat “if
possible”[1]
The passing of the law Bill C-29 Species at Risk Act (SARA)
was criticized by many including scientists who claim that the
bill does not protect endangered species habitat, but is
restricted to their ‘critical habitat’, and this would not really be
enough to ensure that the species can survive. In the bill,
habitat is currently defined as a specific dwelling site such as a
den, nest, or other area occupied or habitually occupied by an
individual or population during part of its life cycle, including
breeding, rearing and hibernating. This definition is limited
and does not protect the entire habitat of the species, making
it very vulnerable to extinction. As well this definition is
ambiguous. A calving ground is clearly occupied by a
population of Caribou, but only portions of it are habitually
occupied by an individual.
While the population of any wild species can be spread over a
large area, its actual distribution may be scattered in individual
pockets of prime, preferred habitat… In one part of the
province a species may be abundant while in another part it
may be stressed because of localized human activities.[2]
[1] Lindgren, Richard D. The Species at Risk Act: An
Overview: Report No.408.Online Posting. Toronto: Canadian
Environmental Law Association, 25 Sept 01, p.17
<www.cela.ca>
[2] Penner, Barry. “Taking steps to protect species at risk”
The Chilliwack Progress. Online. 13 Jun 06.
<proquest.umi.com.cerberus.lib.uoguelph.ca>
The Spirit Bear



In Alberta, only 3,000 woodland caribou remain, a decline of about sixty percent since the 1960s.
Many herds will face extinction if current development plans go ahead. Habitat protection in
legislation is crucial to the survival of endangered species.
To illustrate this further is the case study of the ‘Spirit Bear’, the white Kermode, a genetically
unique subspecies of the black bear that is critically endangered, with fewer than four hundred
bears in existence.[3] The bear requires the full protection of its habitat. The land use agreement
signed by the British Columbia government protects two-thirds of the Spirit Bear’s last intact
habitat, yet the final third, an area known as the Green-Sheep passage/Tolmie option area or
Green Watershed, remained completely threatened until just recently.
[3] Jackson, Simon, founder. SBYC: Spirit Bear Youth Coalition. 9 July 06.
<www.spiritbearyouth.org>
The Northern Spotted Owl




Secondly the Northern Spotted Owl is a critically
endangered species with about twenty-two animals
remaining [in Canada].[4] It inhabits the coniferous
forests of the Pacific Northwest. The British Columbia
government’s plan allows logging of critical owl
habitat, focuses on capture, breeding, and release but
does not protect the old growth forests the owls need
to survive. Although British Columbia has the greatest
biodiversity of any Canadian province it is one of only
two provinces without provincial species legislation.
“The 45 newly listed threatened species in British
Columbia represent 8.5% of all the species at risk in
Canada.”[5] This is a clear correlation to the fact that
the lack of legislation in B.C. is detrimental to the
conservation of species.
In December of 2005 British Columbia environmental
groups filed a lawsuit under Canada’s Species at Risk
Act, seeking federal government intervention to
protect the owl since no provincial legislation exists.
The spotted owl lawsuit was launched on behalf of the
Western Canada Wilderness Committee, David Suzuki
Foundation, Environmental Defence and ForestEthics.
It took a combined effort to create support for this
attempt to save the owl, even though under Canada’s
Species at Risk Act it is a provision that crosses the
provincial-federal jurisdictions in order to ensure the
survival of a species.
[4] “2010 Winter Olympics Prompt B.C. Plan to
Recover Spotted Owl” Environment News Service.1
May 2006. 1 June 2006. <www.ensnewswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-01-02.asp>
[5] Penner, Barry. “Taking steps to protect species at
risk” The Chilliwack Progress. Online. 13 Jun 06.
<proquest.umi.com.cerberus.lib.uoguelph.ca>
Listing & Scientific Research



Bill C-29, Species at Risk Act, has problems regarding its listing procedure. It should be wary of
listing a species as non-endangered due to species having other populations internationally.
Although a species may be located in other places in the world this does not ensure that that
species will be protected from extinction. More geographical locations of a species increases the
assurance that that species will survive into the future. Not only does it ensure that another
population exists elsewhere in case that other population becomes threatened by extinction. But
as well it ensures that genetic diversity exists.
As well, scientists observed that the bill does not ensure that scientists would be the ones to
determine that a species was at risk, but left the decision to cabinet ministers, who would be given
recommendations by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
Furthermore it should be noted that SARA also authorizes the listing of a species that is in rapid
decline and facing imminent threat to its survival. “However, this ‘emergency listing’ power is also
subject to the discretion of the federal Environment Minister and Cabinet.”[1] Therefore many
species that scientists are reporting at risk will not necessarily be listed for protection.
[1] Lindgren, Richard D. The Species at Risk Act: An Overview: Report No.408.Online Posting.
Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association, 25 Sept 01, p.15-16 <www.cela.ca>
COSEWIC: Listing & Scientific
Research



Scientists protested that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) should have the legal authority for listing species, ensuring that
all threatened species needing protection are listed. Bill C-29 does not require that
the scientific designations be adopted nor does it require any form of justification
from listing decisions that diverge from COSEWIC designations. Excessive political
discretion in the listing process undermines the credibility of Bill C-29. Scientific
research and information should be the guidelines by which a law that protects
endangered species be based upon. If political will can determine which species are
being placed on the list of endangered species than species being placed there may
not be placed there for the appropriate reasons.
For instance if a certain fish species was endangered, and recommended to the list by
COSEWIC, however the fishing industry was pressuring politicians not to place that
species on the list due to economical reasons, this could cause the extinction of that
fish species. “It is noteworthy that a significant number of Ontario species found to
be at risk by COSEWIC have yet to be designated under Ontario’s Endangered
Species Act.”[2] The Eastern Cod is an example of such a species that was
recommended by a scientific body to be protected however was not placed on the list
of endangered species and almost became extinct.
[2] Lindgren, Richard D. The Species at Risk Act: An Overview: Report
No.408.Online Posting. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association, 25 Sept
01, p.10. www.cela.ca
The Eastern Cougar

The Eastern Cougar and Northern
Spotted Owl are non-migrating
internationally ranging species.
Protection for these animals would
depend in part on whether the
Canadian populations are listed as
geographically distinct from the
populations in the United States. If
the Eastern Cougar is identified as part
of an international population then Bill
C-29 will make it legal to kill or harm
an individual or destroy its residence
anywhere in Canada. International
cooperation has helped to keep
endangered species from extinction.
For example by recovering extirpated
species in one nation by reintroducing
individuals from another. This has
occurred with sea otters in British
Columbia and grey wolves in
Yellowstone National Park. This should
be taken into consideration when
developing policy. If all countries
protected endangered species within
their borders it would help to ensure
the survival of the species worldwide.
Federal & Private Lands




Bill C-29, Canada’s Species at Risk Act, appears to be a good start towards
species protection; however it does not apply throughout Canada.
It should be noted, however that…[the]…broad prohibitions…[in SARA]…do
not apply to species on provincial lands…unless the Cabinet makes a
discretionary order providing that the prohibitions apply to such
species…Such an order cannot be made unless the federal Environment
Minister ‘is of the opinion that the laws of the province do not protect the
species.’[1]
In Canada’s ten provinces Bill C-29 Species at Risk Act’s prohibitions,
emergency orders, and regulations under recovery plans will apply only on
federal lands and waters. For example the endangered Aurora trout,
currently suffers from lake acidification in northern Ontario, in areas of
federal jurisdiction. Under Bill C-29, the animals and their habitat would
also be eligible for emergency protection if required.
[1] Lindgren, Richard D. The Species at Risk Act: An Overview: Report
No.408.Online Posting. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association,
25 Sept 01, p.16. <www.cela.ca>
The Vancouver Island Marmot &
Newfoundland Marten

On the other hand the Vancouver Island marmot, and Newfoundland
marten are not all found on federal lands. The Vancouver Island marmot
is an endemic Canadian species with only three hundred to three hundred
and fifty surviving individuals, all in colonies on private and provincial
lands threatened by recreational developments. The Newfoundland
marten with a population of about two hundred and fifty animals are
provincially protected from direct killing, but live in old growth forests that
are currently being logged on private lands. Only twenty-five martens,
recently moved to Terra Nova National Park will be protected. For animals
that range between Canada and the United States protection varies from
species to species. Canadian grizzly bears will not be protected outside of
federal lands.
Conclusion & Recommendations

The government of Canada has made efforts towards protecting
and conserving endangered species in Canada. It acknowledges
the need for legislation to protect and conserve its wildlife.
However species extinction is still an imminent problem facing
Canada, and there are both strengths and weaknesses in the
legislation that exists. It is important to identify these to ensure
the protection and conservation of Canada’s wildlife species. And
furthermore, to find solutions to improve upon past legislation, to
ensure that Canada’s wildlife is protected indefinitely.


The Species at Risk Act was designed to encourage
cooperation among all stakeholders of endangered species,
including provincial and federal governments, industry, and
the community. However this is also a challenge for
maintaining species protection because there are no clear
cut lines to define the responsibilities of each and every
stakeholder involved and no guarantees that species will be
protected indefinitely. The fate of the endangered species
itself is not always considered as the primary concern. In
many cases government, industry, and society takes
precedence over all decisions that are made regarding their
protection.
Furthermore the Species at Risk Act does not necessarily
protect all of the species throughout Canada. It protects
species on federal lands and waters but not on private
lands. And this means that species are not fully protected
throughout Canada, and also means that migratory species
are at further risk.

The Species at Risk Act needs to be improved so that it is strong
enough to protect endangered species. It must protect a species
entire habitat. It must list species directly according to the
professional and scientific assignments of COSEWIC. And it must
protect species throughout Canada, on all federally and
provincially owned lands and waters. The government must also
pay more attention to scientific information, environmental nongovernmental organizations, citizens and the species that are at
risk themselves. It takes a combined effort to create the
legislation that is required to safeguard our countries species, and
Canada must use all of the resources it has to ensure species are
protected from extinction.