The effects of lead agency, nongovernmental organizations, and recovery team membership on the identification of critical habitat for species at risk: insights from the Canadian experience

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric B. Taylor ◽  
Susan Pinkus
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Nongovernmental Organizations ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Critical Habitat ◽  
Lead Agency ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
Species At Risk Act

Evaluation of legislation and procedures in place to help recover species at risk of extinction is an important component of conservation efforts. Despite its biological importance and key role in species protection and recovery legislation, identification of critical habitat is inconsistently applied. We analyzed data from 126 recovery strategies implemented under Canada’s nascent (2002) Species at Risk Act (SARA) to determine how lead agency, Federal Court rulings, and the proportion of independent team members influenced identification of critical habitat. Only 17% of strategies led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans included critical habitat, compared with 63% of strategies led by Environment Canada, indicating that aquatic species at risk are much less likely to have critical habitat identified. A 50% increase in recovery strategies that identified critical habitat following precedent-setting court judgments suggests that legal action by nongovernmental organizations played a key role in the evolution of recovery policy for species at risk in Canada. The proportion of independent scientists on a recovery team was statistically unrelated to identification of critical habitat at a national scale, but case studies indicate that independent team members may play an important role in ensuring compliance and transparency during recovery planning.

The Recovery Illusion: What Is Delaying the Rescue of Imperiled Species?

BioScience ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina C Ferreira ◽  
Thomas J Hossie ◽  
Deborah A Jenkins ◽  
Morgan Wehtje ◽  
Cayla E Austin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Road Density ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Imperiled Species

Abstract With unprecedented losses in biodiversity, the need for stronger environmental policy has emerged as a conservation priority. Yet recovery planning for imperiled species remains a cumbersome, slow legislative process. In the present article, we examine features of recovery planning for species listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act to determine those influencing recovery planning duration. We found that the time to completion of recovery strategies increases with the number of jurisdictions concurrently listing the species, greater land tenure diversity, species population size, and road density. Species at risk in Canada with no listing status in the United States also suffered longer delays. To achieve a more efficient, timely, and defensible implementation of recovery planning, we recommend that governments prioritize recovery planning on the basis of risk level, promote transjurisdictional collaboration among listing agencies, anticipate and mitigate conservation challenges associated with multitenured and developed landscapes, and adopt procedures that enhance compliance with legislated timelines for recovery planning.

scholarly journals Identifying the critical habitat of Canadian vertebrate species at risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Lemieux Lefebvre ◽  
M. Landry-Cuerrier ◽  
M.M. Humphries
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Population Viability ◽  
Habitat Characteristics ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Vertebrate Species ◽  
Critical Habitat ◽  
Habitat Occupancy ◽  
Individual Fitness ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
The Right

Identification of critical habitat is central to major conservation laws protecting endangered species in North America and around the world. Yet the actual ecological research that is required to identify which habitats are critical to the survival or recovery of species is rarely discussed and poorly documented. Here we quantitatively assess the information and methods used to identify critical habitat in the recovery strategies of 53 vertebrates at risk in Canada. Of the critical habitat identifications assessed, 17% were based on habitat occupancy information, 28% on habitat characteristics and (or) functions, and 40% assessed habitat suitability by linking functional use and biophysical characteristics. However, only 15% of the recovery strategies we evaluated examined relationships between habitat and population viability, abundance, individual fitness, or survival. Furthermore, the breadth of evidence used to assess critical habitats was weaker among long-lived taxa and did not improve over time. Hence, although any approach used to identify critical habitat is likely to be a step in the right direction in minimally protecting and maintaining habitats supporting critical life-cycle processes, there is a persistent gap between the widely recognized importance of critical habitat and our ability to quantitatively link habitats to population trends and individual fitness.

Species Listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1609-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. SCOTT FINDLAY ◽  
STEWART ELGIE ◽  
BRIAN GILES ◽  
LINDA BURR
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk Act

scholarly journals Less specific recovery strategy targets for threatened and non-charismatic species at risk in Canada

Oryx ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-435
Author(s):  
Elysabeth Théberge ◽  
Joseph J. Nocera
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Threatened Species ◽  
Population Estimates ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Recovery Strategy ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
Taxonomic Grouping ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Lexical Density

AbstractRecovery strategies for species at risk have been criticized for a lack of specificity (i.e. measurable and quantifiable criteria) as well as for taxonomic biases, both of which may ultimately affect species’ recovery. However, it is unknown whether the clarity and specificity of written statements within recovery strategies can also influence recovery efforts for certain species at risk. To assess this we examined the variation in semantic uncertainty in the target statements of recovery strategies for Canadian species at risk at the federal and provincial levels. We quantified the lexical density and readability of recovery target statements and examined them for differences according to taxonomic grouping, jurisdiction and degree of endangerment. Recovery statements for the category threatened species had greater semantic uncertainty than those for higher (endangered) and lower (special concern) categories, which is likely to be a function of the fact that threatened species are less abundant than special concern species but are subject to greater errors in population estimates than endangered species. We also found that recovery statements for non-charismatic species (e.g. plants and invertebrates) had greater semantic uncertainty than those for other taxa, which may be related to the resources available for studying and conserving them. Our results suggest a need for greater specificity in recovery targets for threatened and non-charismatic species, and that more focused data collection on these species’ populations is warranted.

Canadian species at risk (2006–2008), with particular emphasis on fishes

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (NA) ◽  
pp. 53-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Hutchings ◽  
Marco Festa-Bianchet
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Marine Fish ◽  
Spatiotemporal Analysis ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Diadromous Species

In accordance with the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is nationally responsible for assessing wildlife species considered to be at risk of extinction. A parliamentary review of SARA provides impetus for an up-to-date summary of recent assessments (2006–2008) and a spatiotemporal analysis of the status of Canada's largest vertebrate group of species at risk, fishes. From April 1978 through December 2008, COSEWIC had assessed 13 wildlife species as extinct and 564 at some level of risk (extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern). Among these 577 assessments, 112 are for fishes (76% freshwater and diadromous; 24% marine). Slightly more than one-quarter (27%) of Canada's 205 freshwater and diadromous species of fishes, many of which are in southwestern Ontario and southeastern Quebec, have been assessed as being at risk throughout all or parts of their ranges. The percentage of Canadian freshwater and diadromous fish species assessed by COSEWIC as endangered or threatened (16%) is similar to the percentage of freshwater and diadromous fishes in the US that have been listed under the Endangered Species Act (12%). The proportion of wholly freshwater fishes assessed by COSEWIC that have been added to SARA's legal schedule is somewhat lower than that of other taxa. However, whereas the US listed its first marine fish in 2005, the Canadian government has to date not accepted COSEWIC's advice to list an endangered or threatened marine fish since the proclamation of SARA in 2003.

Canada's Species at Risk Act

Fisheries ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (12) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Irvine ◽  
Mart R. Gross ◽  
Chris C. Wood ◽  
L. Blair Holtby ◽  
Neil D. Schubert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk Act

scholarly journals Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing species at risk legislation

FACETS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alana R. Westwood ◽  
Sarah P. Otto ◽  
Arne Mooers ◽  
Chris Darimont ◽  
Karen E. Hodges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Provincial Government ◽  
Individual Species ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Species Declines

British Columbia has the greatest biological diversity of any province or territory in Canada. Yet increasing numbers of species in British Columbia are threatened with extinction. The current patchwork of provincial laws and regulations has not effectively prevented species declines. Recently, the Provincial Government has committed to enacting an endangered species law. Drawing upon our scientific and legal expertise, we offer recommendations for key features of endangered species legislation that build upon strengths and avoid weaknesses observed elsewhere. We recommend striking an independent Oversight Committee to provide recommendations about listing species, organize Recovery Teams, and monitor the efficacy of actions taken. Recovery Teams would evaluate and prioritize potential actions for individual species or groups of species that face common threats or live in a common area, based on best available evidence (including natural and social science and Indigenous Knowledge). Our recommendations focus on implementing an adaptive approach, with ongoing and transparent monitoring and reporting, to reduce delays between determining when a species is at risk and taking effective actions to save it. We urge lawmakers to include this strong evidentiary basis for species recovery as they tackle the scientific and socioeconomic challenges of building an effective species at risk Act.

scholarly journals Fixing the Canadian Species at Risk Act: identifying major issues and recommendations for increasing accountability and efficiency

FACETS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1474-1494
Author(s):  
Audrey Turcotte ◽  
Natalie Kermany ◽  
Sharla Foster ◽  
Caitlyn A. Proctor ◽  
Sydney M. Gilmour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Government Accountability ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Species Protection ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
Legislative Amendments ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Risk Protection

Since the implementation of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003, deficiencies in SARA and its application have become clear. Legislative and policy inconsistencies among responsible federal agencies and the use of a subjective approach for prioritizing species protection lead to taxonomic biases in protection. Variations in legislation among provinces/territories and the reluctance of the federal government to take actions make SARA’s application often inefficient on nonfederally managed lands. Ambiguous key terms (e.g., critical habitat) and disregard for legislated deadlines in many steps impede the efficacy of SARA. Additionally, the failure to fully recognize Indigenous knowledge and to seek Indigenous cooperation in the species protection process leads to weaker government accountability, promotes inequity, and leads to missed opportunities for partnerships. New legislative amendments with well-defined and standardized steps, including an automatic listing process, a systematic prioritization program, and clearer demands (e.g., mandatory threshold to trigger safety net/emergency order) would improve the success of species at risk protection. Moreover, a more inclusive approach that brings Indigenous representatives and independent scientists together is necessary for improving SARA’s effectiveness. These changes have the potential to transform SARA into a more powerful act towards protecting Canada’s at-risk wildlife. (The graphical abstract follows.)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document