Carrière, Suzanne

Clark, Karin

Gau, Robert J.

Yonge, Lynda

English

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

ARCTICVOL. 60, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2007) P. iii –vHave You Met SARA?Long before there was legislation that introduced rules about wildlife, people weremanaging and protecting wildlife in the North. However, the pressures on wildlife havenow changed. With climate change and industry pressures, how do we decide what toprotect and how to protect it?One factor that influences this decision is the federal Species At Risk Act (SARA),which has started to shape priorities and set directions for northern science. SARA isone of the results of Canada’s 1992 ratification of the United Nations Convention onBiological Diversity. On signing this Convention, Canada pledged to provide “effectiveprotection” for Canadian species at risk and the ecosystems on which they depend. TheConvention led to the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada in 1996.The Accord saw every jurisdiction in Canada commit to a national approach forprotecting species at risk, with the goal of preventing species in Canada from becomingextinct as a consequence of human activity.The federal government fulfilled many of its commitments under the Accord byenacting SARA in 2004. SARA is a new, large, and somewhat complex piece oflegislation. The federal government is still developing policy positions and legalopinions on how to treat some provisions. However, SARA has already acted as a forceof change in the northern scientific landscape.Much of SARA’s influence stems from the following elements: 1) the process oflegally listing a species and its legal consequences; 2) the federal “safety net” clauses,which require the competent federal minister to take action if a jurisdiction is notproviding effective protection; 3) the need to identify and protect “critical habitat” forthreatened and endangered species; 4) the requirements to assess and mitigate environ-mental effects on species at risk; and 5) the requirement to develop strategies and plansto recover or manage species at risk within a given time frame.Species don’t just appear on a species-at-risk list. The first step in creating such listsis to identify which species might be in danger of being at risk, by assessing the generalstatus of wild plants and animals. In the Northwest Territories (NWT), the last generalstatus assessment of species was done in 2006 and included over 1700 species.In the next step, information from the general status ranks is rolled up withinformation from other Canadian jurisdictions to produce a national general status rankfor each species. Species that are ranked as “may be at risk” at the national level are sentto the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) for adetailed assessment. COSEWIC then assesses whether a species should be classified asa species at risk and sends its assessment to the federal minister.Generally, the process from COSEWIC assessment to SARA listing has worked well,but there have been some “hiccups,” resulting in differences between the COSEWICand SARA lists. For example, COSEWIC has assessed the Dolphin-Union populationof barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus), polar bears (Ursusmaritimus), grizzly bears (U. arctos), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) as species of specialconcern, and Peary caribou (R. t. pearyi) as endangered. However, these species havenot been added to the legal list under SARA, largely because of consultation issues orsocioeconomic considerations.One result of SARA is that the COSEWIC list is no longer used to indicate whichspecies need special attention. Instead, the focus has shifted noticeably to the morelimited SARA list.The federal safety net refers to the requirement for federal action in the face ofprovincial or territorial inaction. Under SARA, the federal minister must recommend tothe cabinet that federal prohibitions and protection be applied to a threatened orendangered species if he or she thinks that a province or territory is failing to protectlisted species or their critical habitat effectively.Although the federal safety net has not yet been invoked, recent legal proceedingshave tried to force the federal government to action over the spotted owl (Strixiiiiv • COMMENTARYoccidentalis caurina) in British Columbia and the boreal population of woodlandcaribou (R. t. caribou) in Alberta, among other species. The NWT, Yukon, and Nunavutare in the enviable situation of still having vast areas of intact habitat for our wildlifespecies. Consequently, some species, such as the boreal population of woodlandcaribou, are at risk nationally, but not at risk in the North. However, the SARA listingstill applies, and effective protection must be provided to SARA-listed species. To keepthe federal government from stepping in, northern jurisdictions must proactively showthey are effectively protecting these species.The SARA requirement to identify and protect critical habitat for all endangered andthreatened species listed by SARA has brought about a shift in habitat-based manage-ment. Critical habitat is not simply range use or functional habitat; it is a specific legalterm defined in SARA as “the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery ofa listed wildlife species, and is identified in a Recovery Strategy or Action Plan for thatspecies.” Once a critical habitat has been identified in a recovery strategy or action plan,the relevant protection measures in SARA apply to all federal lands and waters,including all federal Crown land in the North.Identifying critical habitat and understanding how it functions on the landscape issomething that each jurisdiction must now address. For species found in multiplejurisdictions both on and off federal lands, like the boreal population of woodlandcaribou, the process of defining and identifying critical habitat has taken years and willrequire years more. A further complication is that both federal policy issues regardingcritical habitat and the content requirements for recovery strategies and action plans arestill being refined.SARA’s requirement to identify and protect critical habitat should not be the onlymotive for identifying wildlife research needs. Northern wildlife research prioritiesshould be set in the North for the North’s needs; however, funds drive priorities, andspecies-at-risk funds drive nationally determined priorities, which do not necessarily fitnorthern needs. For example, because habitat loss is the primary reason for species’becoming at risk in most of Canada, SARA funding tends to be directed towardsactivities such as re-introduction studies or habitat enhancement projects. However,these types of activities are almost never valid as recovery actions in the North. Simpleinventories of lesser-known species and population monitoring of species at risk maybe priorities for the NWT, but species-at-risk funds rarely cover these kinds of activities.SARA has changed how industrial proponents and their contractors study the wildlifeand landscapes associated with their projects in the North. Its environmental assessmentcomponent requires them to identify, monitor, and mitigate impacts on SARA-listedspecies resulting from a development project. But best-practice guidelines wouldadvocate that environmental assessments also consider impacts on species listed byCOSEWIC and other territorial processes. While these responsibilities ultimately reston the body conducting the environmental assessment, in practice they shape the typeof information that developers provide to the environmental assessment body.In the NWT, one of the territorial government’s roles in environmental assessmentis to provide expert advice and recommendations for the mitigation and monitoring ofwildlife impacts near developments. Because information about many species listedunder SARA is lacking, the government has initiated programs to help develop andsubstantiate the recommendations being put forward.The system of land tenure in the North complicates the issue of development and itsimpacts on species at risk, particularly in the NWT and Nunavut, which lack devolutionagreements with the federal government. Under SARA, listed species other than fish ormigratory birds receive immediate protection only in national parks, migratory birdsanctuaries, and other areas under the purview of the competent federal ministers underSARA: Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. However, the majorityof the land base in Nunavut and the NWT is considered unoccupied federal Crown land.While the governments of the NWT and Nunavut have authority for wildlife manage-ment on this land, they do not have control over the land or, therefore, over most wildlifehabitat. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) administers the land, but theminister of INAC is not a competent minister under SARA. Thus, there are species listedCOMMENTARY • vin a federal act, on federal land in the North, but the role of the primary land managerin implementing SARA is limited, and the role of land and water boards in the Northfurther complicates matters.While Environment Canada is ultimately responsible for ensuring the application ofSARA throughout the North, all parties involved need to work more closely togetherwhen making and implementing recommendations related to SARA, especially on land-use permit authorizations. SARA has increased the need for inter-jurisdictional coop-eration as well as for enforcement.Once on the SARA list, species have a legal timeline for recovery planningrequirements, whereas species listed by COSEWIC do not. SARA has now created atwo-tiered recovery system. The focus on SARA-listed species can create problems, aspriority for recovery planning is no longer related to a higher risk of extirpation. Forexample, the Peary caribou, an endangered subspecies of caribou that only occurs in theNWT and Nunavut, is one of the species most at risk in the North. However, because itis not yet on the SARA list, it has no legislated timelines for recovery planning and nofederal funding committed for recovery actions.SARA deadlines for recovery strategies and management plans have already changedsome northern planning priorities with respect to wildlife research, monitoring, andmanagement. Also, recovery planning under SARA can be challenging. Many of theprotocols and policies required to guide recovery planning under SARA are still beingdeveloped. Because recovery planning under SARA often involves multiple jurisdic-tions and national priorities, northern biologists, wildlife managers, wildlife co-management boards, governments, and aboriginal self-governments need to plan forrecovery or monitoring actions that will not only help the species in the North, but alsotake into consideration the populations outside their jurisdiction. This means prioritiesand research needs may not be determined in the North.There are still vast expanses of pristine wilderness areas north of the 60th parallel;as a result, the list of species considered to be at risk in the North is significantly smallerthan in southern jurisdictions. However, SARA, with its legal list of species at risk, ishaving a considerable impact on northern wildlife management. The fifth anniversaryof SARA is in December 2007. Northern jurisdictions should take this opportunity tocooperatively investigate how SARA has influenced priorities and modified wildliferesearch and monitoring activities so we can better set priorities for the future. We needto increase efficiencies in listing and recovery planning. We need to come to anunderstanding about roles and responsibilities with respect to species at risk andenvironmental assessment and land use. And finally, northern jurisdictions have theopportunity to design their own territorial species-at-risk legislation in a way that willnot only complement SARA, but also assert the needs and priorities of northern species.Robert J. Gau, Suzanne Carrière, Karin Clark and Lynda YongeWildlife Division, Department of Environment & Natural ResourcesGovernment of the Northwest TerritoriesYellowknife, Northwest Territories X1A 2L9

Have You Met SARA?

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/download/63276/47213

Have You Met SARA?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Calgary Journal Hosting