Where's the Law: BC's Species at Risk Need Strong Lega Protection

[Brenda]

Originally printed in the BC Forest Professional (January/February 2010)

Where’s the Law?
BC’s Species at Risk Need Strong Legal Protection
By Keith Ferguson, PhD and Susan Pinkus, RPBio

Public opinion polling (1) shows that British Columbians place a high value on biodiversity and strongly support efforts to protect species at risk and their habitat. A 2008 BC government poll, for example, concluded, “The majority of respondents indicated that the protection and recovery of species at risk should be given priority over economic considerations…. Most respondents were in favour of restricting future industrial development in order to protect and restore species at risk and their habitats, including the limiting of timber harvesting (2)…”

Despite such clear indications of the public’s priorities, BC is one of only two provinces with no stand-alone provincial law to protect species at risk, the other being Alberta, and the patchwork of laws and policies BC does have are clearly not working. For instance, 43% of BC’s species are at risk of disappearing from the province (3), 86% of them succumbing primarily to habitat loss and degradation. At least 49 species or subspecies are already gone or likely gone from the province (4), while four biogeoclimatic zones are at risk, as are over half of our ecological communities.

In BC’s worst hotspots for species at risk, urban and agricultural development rather than forestry are the key causes. But species in the province’s forests are not faring well either. Of forest-associated (5) species in BC, 31% of freshwater fish are at risk, as are 25% of amphibians, 5% of mammals and 8% of breeding birds. At least 27% of the province’s red-listed species are forest-associated. And 44% of BC’s 36 forest-associated mammals with known habitat trends already had contracting ranges in the year 2000. These findings do not instill confidence that BC is practising ‘sustainable forestry’ or ‘good stewardship based on sound ecological principles,’ nor that BC’s existing laws are adequate to protect species at risk and their habitats.

While the unfortunate circumstance in BC’s forests finds it roots in historical practices, the Forest and Range Practices Act is not a sufficient solution. It does result in some protections for species at risk, such as flow from objectives for wildlife, for biodiversity in riparian areas, and for biodiversity at the landscape and stand levels. However, all of these objectives are highly constrained by the requirement to not “unduly reduce the supply of timber,” and the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy is subject to the one percent policy cap on short-term harvest impact. Nor do species fare much better under BC’s Wildlife Act: it lists just four species as threatened or endangered, and provides no habitat protection. Further, BC’s system of parks and protected areas, while important for biodiversity, do not overlap the habitat of most species at risk and were not designed with species recovery in mind. And while land use planning processes have resulted in some conservation gains, there is no systematic conservation- based land use planning process in BC.

Federally, the Species At Risk Act (SARA) automatically protects individuals and residences of aquatic species, migratory birds, and species on federal lands. It also protects identified critical habitat of aquatic species and of species on federal lands. In all other cases, SARA’s protections only apply if the federal cabinet passes a discretionary ‘safety net’ order—something it has never done. Thus currently in BC, SARA’s protections do not apply to most forest-associated species or their habitat. Given the lack of effective BC laws for species at risk, it may only be a matter of time until the federal Minister of Environment is forced to recommend a safety net order under SARA for a species at risk on forest lands in BC.

In summary, current laws and policies applicable in BC fall far short of requiring good stewardship of the province’s species at risk, despite a clear public mandate to do so.

British Columbia has in the past made commitments to comprehensively protect species at risk. It supported Canada’s ratification of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, and in 1996, signed the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Ecojustice believes it is time for BC to live up to those commitments. That is why environmental organizations are proposing a comprehensive BC Species and Ecosystem Protection Act (SEPA).

The provincial government recently announced it would establish a task force to suggest a new defining vision for BC in relation to species at risk protection. We believe any such vision must include new legislation which does the following:

• Is based on sound science,
• Identifies species at risk,
• Plans for their recovery,
• Identifies and protects their essential
  habitat,
• Requires transparency and accountability;
  and,
• Is adequately enforced and funded.

Of course, merely avoiding species loss is not enough. Maintaining ecological integrity and the services that ecosystems provide will necessitate much more. But preventing species being lost from the province must be a basic bottom line. Currently BC law does not ensure even that.

For information on the campaign to pass a BC Species and Ecosystems Protection Act, visit www.protectbiodiversity.ca

Keith Ferguson, PhD, has been a staff lawyer at Ecojustice Canada since 2006. Keith’s recent work includes the Mackenzie pipeline hearings, litigation under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) to ensure critical habitat is identified and submissions to Parliament on the five year review of SARA.

Susan Pinkus, RPBio, has been a conservation biologist at Ecojustice Canada since 2007. Susan has spent the past 15 years working with plants, animals and ecosystems at risk on four continents.

Endnotes

1 A poll conducted in March, 2008 found that 88 percent of British Columbians polled agreed with the statement that “Species at risk protection and recovery in the area where I live is important to me.” Results were similar for protection of species at risk in other areas besides where the respondent lived. Harshaw, H.W. 2008. British Columbia Species at Risk Public Opinion Survey 2008: Final technical report. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning. Available at: www.sar-pos.ca/BC-SaRPOS_ Final-Technical-Report_08-06-24.pdf. A poll conducted in July, 2008 found that 83 percent of British Columbians polled support the creation of a single, effective provincial law to protect endangered species in BC. The results are considered accurate to within +/- 4.0 percent, 19-times-in-20, of what they would have been had the entire population of eligible British Columbia voters been polled. Stratcom. 2008. BC Omnibus Summer 2008. Vancouver, BC: Western Canada Wilderness Committee. A poll conducted in March 2007 found that 70% of British Columbians sided with the point of view that it is important to conserve and protect wildlife and habitats even if it means slowing down or scaling down economic developments. Synovate Research. 2007. Species at Risk Public Opinion Survey for Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional Districts. Vancouver, BC: South Coast Conservation Program. Available at: http:// www.shim.bc.ca/atlases/sar/sccp/SCCP%20 SAR%20Poll%20March%202007.pdf
2 Harshaw, H.W. 2008. British Columbia Species at Risk Public Opinion Survey 2008: Final technical report. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning. Available at: www. sar-pos.ca/BC-SaR-POS_Final-Technical- Report_08-06-24.pdf
3 The following taxonomic groups were considered: all vertebrates except marine fish and cetaceans, all vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, conifers, monocots, and dicots), and the better-known invertebrates (butterflies and skippers, dragonflies and damselflies, and nonmarine molluscs). See: Austin, M.A., D.A. Buffett, D.J. Nicolson, G.G.E. Scudder and V. Stevens (eds.). 2008. Taking Nature’s Pulse: The Status of Biodiversity in British Columbia. Victoria: Biodiversity BC. Available at: www.biodiversitybc.org
4 For a full list, see Moola, F., D. Page, M. Connolly and L. Coulter. 2007. Rich Wildlife, Poor Protection: The urgent need for strong legal protection of British Columbia’s biodiversity. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation and Sierra Legal (Ecojustice), at page 32. Available at: http://www.ecojustice. ca/publications/reports/rich-wildlife-poorprotection/ attachment
5 We follow the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers definition of forest-associated species as “species with a measurable dependence on a forest ecosystem(s) for any aspect of its life history (including indirect dependence, such as consuming forest-based or forestderived resources.” Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2005. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada – National Status 2005. Indicator 1.2.1 – Status of forest-associated species at risk. Available at http://www.ccfm.org/ci/rprt2005/English/pg31- 47_1-2-1.htm

[Land Lubber]

Thank you for posting this article from the BC Forest Professional. I think it's important that members and the public have the opportunity to comment on these and other types of issues that are current and topical and affect forest management in the province.

I admittedly don't have a lot of experience with this issue, but please indulge me my opinion. My work-related task most relevant to this issue is working to identify Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) for Landscape Unit (LU) planning. Fortunately Wildlife habitat areas have already been identified across the LUs for grizzly, marbeled murrelet, mountain goat, and deer, so those are all priority areas for biodiversity representation as protection has been committed there.

One interesting note in the article is that the majority of the species at risk are in urban areas and this makes sense as deforestation happens where development is occurring and human population is highest. Maybe the intent of the article was to raise awareness and support among our profession so the focus was on forest practices, however it might be a bit unfair to point the finger in our direction when the majority of impacts are not caused in the forest. Though the logo features a grizzly bear and owl, in this century you will not find these species near to many urban areas. Maybe that is the point. People can support protection of owls as they develop their urban property without risk because the owls have already disappeared. It's easy to support something that has no personal cost.

What role does climate change play in all of this? Will we go to great lengths to protect species only to have them disappear due to events beyond our control? Are some of these species at risk simply because they are poor adapters? Were their numbers already low before we came along?

Upon reading the principles for this proposed act I don't see what is proposed for specific implementation, other than habitat protection. Recovery plans... maybe I'm too pessimistic to believe that a species lost can be regained, outside of a zoo. Again, considering the expansion of urban areas the focus audience should probably be those responsible for development of municipal areas, towns and cities. And as for the forested areas, how much more can be protected than what is already being done with wildlife habitat areas? For the 'charismatic megafauna' I would say we need better policy/penalties for 'lead poisoning' i.e. poaching and poor hunting practices. Some would argue that industrial development (including forestry) is already over-legislated. If what we have now is not doing the job, what good will more legislation do?

Given all that, I'd be willing to support legislation that protects endangered species. I understand that forestry is more than just trees, and forest professionals should do our part in supporting other groups in ways that promote sensible forest management. The devil is in the details - how much will this cost? - who is responsible to pay? Presumably the public in support of these ideals will put their money where their mouth is - but a tax across the board would not likely be very popular. Any other solutions?

I'm curious what other forest professionals think about this.