Hi Santi, Ocean Wise has a few comments for the Seafood Watch

Hi Santi,
Ocean Wise has a few comments for the Seafood Watch criteria review process that we would like to
share. Overall we feel the criteria are much more robust than it was a few years ago and are pleased
that there is now a quantitative scoring for each factor. Below is my feedback around how to recognize
endangered or threatened species. My colleague Laurenne (cc’d here), who we’ve just hired as a
research analyst to write some of the EAP reports, will be sending along some more detailed comments
on other factors next week.
We feel that COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) should be
considered by Seafood Watch as one of the scientific bodies that ranks species as threatened or
endangered rather than SARA (Species at Risk Act). There are many examples of the Canadian
government is failing to follow scientific evidence and protect species under SARA as recommended by
COSEWIC. Many species fail to be listed under SARA due to social, economic or political impacts with
fishes representing the taxonomic group least likely to be listed. Since 2004, only 35% of marine fish
assessed by COSEWIC as “at risk” have been added to the list and no marine fish have been listed as
endangered or threatened, which would automatically grant them protection against harm.
Even species listed under SARA are not being protected effectively. It has been found that 86% of the
legally protected species in Canada either maintain the same level of risk or have deteriorated over
time. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113118)
Concerns have been raised over the ineffectiveness of SARA by the Auditor General, in the court of law
and scientific literature. We have attached a few supporting documents and articles which highlight the
deficiencies of SARA.
We feel that fisheries targeting animals listed as vulnerable or threatened by either an international,
national or state government body and specially in Canada, species listed under COSEWIC should be
automatically receive an avoid ranking.
Thanks again and happy holidays!
Best,
Teddie Geach
Ocean Wise Account Representative
Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre
From Laurenne
Comments on Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries
As a preface, I recently joined the Ocean Wise team (December 1st), so I am just starting to work with
the SW assessment criteria and have only had a chance to read through it completely a couple of times. I
understand the numerous challenges that go into developing and executing a grading system that can
assess a variety of different fishing practices (i.e., small-scale vs. industrial, coastal sessile inverts vs.
migratory pelagic fish), so hopefully my comments won’t come across as overly critical. I see incredible
value in this system and my intention is to provide as much constructive feedback as I can to help make
it as user-friendly and accurate as possible. Given my limited experience with the Seafood Watch
system, please forgive me if some of my comments are misplaced due to my own misinterpretation/
misunderstanding of the grading system—I’m definitely still learning.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me ([email protected]) for clarification on any of my
questions and suggestions!
Overall, I have found the assessment criteria to be fairly challenging to interpret and ambiguous in
various sections. I understand detail is essential for this type of approach, but scoring criteria also have
to be flexible enough to address multiple types of fisheries (big and small, distant water and EEZ, inverts
and fish). I believe this is one overarching goal that should be kept in mind at all times when revamping
the assessment criteria.
Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species under Assessment
•
For the assessment of stock abundance (Factor 1.2), I believe that a greater differentiation in the
scoring based on the quality of data or assessment methods is needed. I think the scoring should
reflect not only the status of the assessed stock, but also the quality of the data used to get that
status (e.g. independent survey or fisheries-based) and the assumptions in the models used.
Under the current scoring scheme, the tradeoff between stock status and assessment quality is
vague. Perhaps a scoring system where the stock is initially scored based on its status (e.g.,
B current /B ref or another means) and subsequently adjusted based on the data/models used might
allow for more transparent and consistent scoring;
•
The assessments of fishing mortality (Factor 1.3) utilize reference points based on F MSY . Given
that MSY is a stock-specific concept (i.e., a function of carrying capacity, K, and intrinsic growth
rate, r), how is it to be applied in the assessment of mixed-gear fisheries? If the total fishing
mortality from multiple fisheries exceeds F MSY (or some other reference point derived from
F MSY ), does that not preclude all fisheries targeting that stock from receiving a low score (i.e.,
High Concern) on Factor 1.3, even if the fishery in question is a non-significant contributor to the
total fishing effort? (E.g., artisanal handliners targeting the same tuna stock as industrial
longliners and purse seiners). Here, I assume that the qualifier that the fishery is a “substantial
contributor” to fishing mortality applies only in the assessment of bycatch fisheries. Again,
would it be possible to design a scheme where the fishing mortality score is based on a) F total
relative to F MSY , b) quality of the model (or models if different fisheries were assessed
differently) used to assess F total , and c) contribution of the fishery in question to F total ?;
•
In the scoring of Factor 1.3, the protection of a large proportion of the spawning biomass is
listed as one of the qualifiers under Conservation Concern: Very Low Concern. I believe this is
more of a management measure and should be reflected in Criterion 3 instead;
•
Similarly, for Conservation Concern: High Concern, I do not agree that the presence of
overfishing alone should be seen as High Concern as long as the stock is not presently in an
overfished state and an appropriate/explicit measure is in place to reduce the fishing effort once
the stock biomass reaches the target biomass;
•
I believe the weighting of Factors 1.2 and 1.3 should be adjusted to allow the current stock
status to weigh more than fishing effort.
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species
•
Given the difficulties associated with obtaining current and fishery-specific data on bycatch rates
and bycatch species composition, it might be worth considering the use of a gear-based scheme
similar to that used in Factor 4.1 and Appendix 3 as a default scoring scheme for this criterion
with modification when such data are available. The bycatch score can be assigned based on a)
gear type, b) bycatch composition based on target species and areas of operation (a modified
version of the bycatch matrix in Appendix 3), and c) total impact score by the scale of the
fishery. A base score computed from these sub-scores can then be modified based on Factor
3.2, either within Criteria 2 or separately in Criteria 3;
•
Given that Criteria 2 is to assess the impacts of the fishery on other species, I do not think there
is a need for distinction between discards and retained bycatch (whether or not the bycatch is
retained or discarded dead, the impact on the stock of the bycaught species is the same).
Therefore, I believe that with a scoring scheme that already includes bycatch rate (as it is
currently defined in these assessments) in its evaluation, having further modifications based on
discard rate (Factor 2.4) are redundant. While I agree with the need to assess the impact of a
fishery on any bait species it uses, I think this should be kept separate from the bycatch issue
and be done in Criteria 4 (Impact on the Ecosystem). This assessment could be done based on
the fishery’s reliance on a baitfish fishery (e.g. milkfish fishery for bait in some tuna fisheries).
Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness
•
In Appendix 4, the emphasis in the evaluation seems to be on output control measures (i.e. TAC
based) while input control measures (e.g., spatial and temporal closures, gear restriction and
effort limits) are relegated to the management of data-poor fisheries. I am concerned whether
this bias is appropriate;
•
Given that Factor 3.1 is specifically for the management of target species (i.e., the species being
assessed), I believe scoring on Recovery of Species of Concern should be restricted to the target
species. Concerns over other target/retained species should be addressed in Factor 3.2;
•
I didn’t see any mention of derelict/damaged gear management (in terms of mitigating gear loss
while fishing and also in terms of port-side measures to recycle/dispose of ruined or old gear
when it is no longer safe to use at sea). I know ghost fishing is mentioned in the current
definition of ‘bycatch’, however trying to quantify the magnitude of ghost fishing associated
with a certain fleet can be very challenging. Having a specific ghost fishing/ gear management
component included in Factor 3.2 might be a more practical way of incorporating this
management concern;
•
The weighting of Factors 3.1 and 3.2 should be based on the scale of bycatch in the fishery
rather than the geometric mean of the two scores. A low score in Factor 3.2 could be the result
of bycatch being a lower priority issue in a relatively low bycatch (but not bycatch-free) fishery.
Criterion 4: Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management
•
As mentioned above, perhaps incorporate bait usage into this Criterion (Factor 4.3) instead of
under Criterion 2;
•
Given that EBFM is a more national strategy (rather than fishery-specific), it might be worth
exploring if some of the policy indicators included in OHI could be applied to this section. Not
sure, just a thought.
Conservation and Policy
Biases in Legal Listing under Canadian Endangered
Species Legislation
Introduction
In many countries wild species can
be granted legal protection when
they are deemed at risk of extinction or extirpation. Protection is the
first step in a process of recovering
the species and can reverse declining population trajectories by reducing human-caused threats (Male &
Bean 2005). Canada was the first major industrialized nation to ratify the
Rio Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992). As part of its responsibilities under the convention
(CBD 1992, section 8k), the Canadian government passed the Species
at Risk Act (Bill C-5, or SARA 2002)
in December 2002 to offer some legal protection and a framework for
recovery of species at risk (reviewed
in VanderZwaag & Hutchings 2005).
Here, we explore taxonomic and geographic factors that influence the
legal listing process and comment
on particular institutional factors that
may lie behind these patterns.
In contrast to the U.S. Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA 1973),
but broadly similar to Australia’s Endangered Species Act ( Woinarski &
Fisher 1999), legal listing of species
in Canada is a two-stage process. The
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC),
an independent scientific advisory
body that has assessed the status of
species since 1977, was established
under SARA as the entity responsible for the assessment of species at
Paper submitted September 21, 2006; revised
manuscript accepted December 24, 2006.
572
Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 3, 572–575
C 2007 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00689.x
risk. On receipt of a species assessment by COSEWIC, the federal government can accept the assessment
of COSEWIC and add the species to
the legal list, decide not to add the
species to the list, or refer the assessment back to COSEWIC for further
consideration. Although reasons for
not listing and for species referrals
have to be made public, the decision
is entirely a discretionary one. For
comparison, there is only one overt
stage in the United States where the
responsible government agency may
legally list species in response to public proposals.
Listing under SARA sets in motion
a number of regulations. Individuals
of listed species are protected, and
there are steep fines for killing them
or destroying their “residences” without a permit (SARA, section 97). Following listing, the government must
make public first a recovery strategy and then an action (or management) plan for recovery. The recovery strategy determines the technical and biological feasibility for recovery (SARA, section 40), whereas the
action plan details socioeconomic
trade-offs and implementation strategies (SARA, section 49). If legal listing is denied, or if the species is referred back to COSEWIC, there are no
legal obligations for recovery action
and the species obtains no federally
legislated protection under SARA.
Methods
We obtained the decisions made from
2004-2006 by the Canadian Ministry
of Environment to list species as
at risk of extinction (SARA Public
Registry,
www.sararegistry.gc.ca;
see Supplementary Material). The
COSEWIC proposes all species, subspecies, or populations (hereafter
species) that it ranks as imperiled
(extinct, extirpated, endangered,
threatened, and special concern) for
listing. In 2000 COSEWIC adopted
a modified version of World Conservation Union quantitative criteria
as a basis for species assessment
(COSEWIC 2004a). These criteria
incorporate information on population decline, abundance, and
geographical range. We recorded
the conservation rank, taxonomic
category, and provinces or territories of occurrence for each species
assessed by COSEWIC. The taxonomic categories were marine
mammal, terrestrial mammal, marine
fish, freshwater fish, bird, amphibian,
reptile, arthropod, mollusk, vascular
plant, moss, and lichen. Marine fish
included wholly and partially marine
species (e.g., anadromous salmonids,
green sturgeon [Acipenser medirostris]). We combined amphibians and
reptiles into “herpetofauna”; arthropods and mollusks into “invertebrates”; and vascular plants, mosses,
and lichens into “plants” (for a total
of eight categories). For mammals
and fishes we determined whether
species were harvested by examining COSEWIC species status reports
(www.sararegistry.gc.ca).
Species
taken only as by-catch were recorded
as nonharvested.
When SARA took effect in 2003,
all 233 species previously assessed
by COSEWIC as imperiled were
Mooers et al.
Biases in Legal Listing
573
Table 1. Number of imperiled species, subspecies, and populations proposed for legal listing in Canada and the listing fates under the Canadian
Species at Risk Act, 2004–2006.
Groupa
Proposed
Listed
Not listed b
Listed (%)
26
12
71
19
17
19
11
11
186
26
12
69
17
13
13
5
1
156
0
0
2 (1)
2 (2)
4 (2)
6 (1)
6
10 (3)
30 (9)
100
100
97
89
76
68
45
9
84
Herpetofauna
Birds
Plants
Invertebrates
Freshwater fish
Marine mammals
Terrestrial mammals
Marine fish
Total
a See
text for details of groupings.
of species referred back to COSEWIC for further consideration are in parentheses.
b Numbers
automatically included on the legal
list. Since then, the Government decides whether to list each species individually. Our analysis is restricted
to the 186 species recommended
for listing by COSEWIC since 2003,
up to August 2006 (Government of
Canada 2006). Species that were either denied listing or referred back
to COSEWIC were scored as not listed
(21 denied, 9 referred back). (The full
list is available; see Supplementary
Material.) We compared the proportion of listed and not listed species
across the eight taxonomic categories and across geographic regions
and harvest status with standard tests
of association ( JMP v. 6.0).
Results
The proportions of species listed differed among taxonomic groups (Table 1; test of marginal homogeneity:
n = 186, G2 = 69.2, p < 0.0001, df =
7). Post hoc tests based on 95% credible intervals of proportions showed
that more plants and herpetofauna,
but fewer marine fish and terrestrial
mammals, were accepted onto the legal list (Table 1). Harvested fish and
mammals were far less likely to be
listed than nonharvested ones. Only
5 of 29 harvested fish and mammals
were listed, whereas 27 of 29 nonharvested fish and mammals were listed
(n = 58, G2 = 38.57, p < 0.0001, df =
1).
None of the 10 species occurring
in Nunavut was listed, and north-
ern species in general (i.e., occurring north of 60◦ in Nunavut, the
Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or
the Arctic Ocean) were less likely
(5/18) to be listed than were nonnorthern species (151/168; n = 186,
G2 = 33.0, p < 0.0001, df = 1; Fig. 1).
This difference was driven primarily by mammals: only 17% of northern mammals were listed (2/12) compared with 88% of non-northern
mammals (15/17). None of the results
changed when we excluded species
that were referred back to COSEWIC
(analyses not shown).
Discussion
The primary correlate of taxonomic
group was governmental jurisdiction.
In most of southern Canada ( below
60o N), terrestrial plants and animals are the responsibility of the
provinces. Responsibility for northern plants and terrestrial animals is
shared among the territories, wildlife
management boards, and the federal
government. Marine species are the
sole responsibility of the federal government. Marine fish were almost always denied listing, as were many imperiled northern species. In addition,
although we did not identify freshwater fish as being significantly less
likely to be listed than other taxonomic groups, 22% of them were not
listed, which is substantially higher
than the average of 3% that were not
listed for plants, birds, herpetofauna,
and invertebrates; the federal govern-
ment has joint jurisdiction over freshwater fish.
We outline two factors that seem
to have contributed to the taxonomic
and geographic biases in legal listing decisions under Canada’s endangered species legislation. The first is
a reluctance by wildlife management
boards and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to accept the additional stewardship responsibilities required by SARA. The second pertains
to deficiencies in the cost–benefit
analyses that precede the legal listing
decisions.
Wildlife
management
boards
( WMBs), whose responsibilities are
primarily in the north, are involved in
the legal listing decisions for species
in their jurisdictions. The stated
governmental reason for not listing
northern mammals is to allow for
further consultation with WMBs,
notably the Nunavut WMB (Government of Canada, 2006). The SARA
provides no timelines for such postassessment consultations, and the
WMBs are consulted by COSEWIC
before each assessment. The resulting delays may elevate the extinction
risk for some species. For example,
Bourdages et al. (2002) estimated
that current harvesting rates of the
eastern Hudson Bay beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas) population, which was denied listing, will
lead to its extinction within 10–15
years. These consultations also
affect populations outside Nunavut
insofar as Nunavut-based delays
have prevented the listing of the
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 3, June 2007
574
Biases in Legal Listing
Mooers et al.
Figure 1. Percentage of imperiled species occurring in each region of Canada that were granted legal protection
under the Species at Risk Act in Canada, 2004–2006 (northern regions, black; NF/LB, Newfoundland and
Labrador; NW Territories, Northwest Territories).
wolverine (Gulo gulo), grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos), and polar bear (U.
maritimus) elsewhere in Canada.
Although not made explicit in
SARA (Government of Canada 2003),
the legal listing process includes
something called a regulatory impact
analysis (RIAS). The RIASs are cost–
benefit analyses undertaken by the
federal government, promulgated under the Financial Administration Act
(PCO 1999). A RIAS typically take
place during the 9 months that immediately precede a listing decision,
prior to the development of any form
of recovery strategy or action plan.
This timing is clearly problematic;
A RIAS will be unable to provide a
complete assessment of the costs and
benefits of species recovery, potentially biasing the perception of the socioeconomic impact of a listing decision. In addition, these cost–benefit
analyses are not subject to external
review.
A major deficiency of RIAS is that
relatively little effort is expended in
estimating benefits. By one estimate,
half of all RIASs examined do not
quantify benefits at all (EARG 1997,
section 4.1). Quantifying the benefits of recovering species is obviously
critical if cost–benefit analyses are to
be taken seriously. Globally, the loss
of habitats and populations deprives
humanity of goods and services with
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 3, June 2007
a net worth of perhaps US$250 billion annually (Balmford et al. 2002).
In Canada failure to take meaningful action to reduce fishing mortality on Newfoundland’s northern Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the
late 1980s led to a subsequent expenditure of C$2–C$3 billion for income
support, buy outs of commercial fishing licenses, and training for alternative employment for displaced fishers
and processors (CEC 2001).
Benefits to listing must also account for nonuse economic values. These
are the benefits of conservation that
can be reflected in part by the value
that society holds for the preservation of species. One such value is
termed “willingness to pay” (e.g., Tisdell et al. 2005). For example, the listing of the porbeagle shark (Lamna
nasus) may exact costs to the fishing
industry of C$865,000–C$1.82 million over 20 years (DFO 2006). These
costs would be readily exceeded by
the nonconsumptive value of the porbeagle if willingness to pay exceeded
pennies per Canadian.
In short, species are most likely
not listed because current benefits
of status quo activities (e.g., fishing)
are quantified as a matter of course,
whereas the benefits of recovery are
not. The single marine (anadromous)
fish that was listed, the green sturgeon, has a “disagreeable taste” and is
not fished commercially (COSEWIC
2004b). Of the freshwater fish proposed for listing by COSEWIC, only
the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) has substantial commercial value (Froese & Pauly 2006), and
the government chose to exclude
populations valuable to sport fishers
from protection under SARA (Government of Canada 2006).
The Canadian government’s failure
to list species such as Newfoundland’s northern cod, despite a decline
estimated to exceed 99% (Hutchings
& Reynolds 2004), sends an ominous but revealing signal to society.
More worrisome, however, may be
the 2006 decision not to list the porbeagle shark. The species has experienced a near-90% reduction in abundance (COSEWIC 2004c) and its lifehistory traits place it at high risk
of extinction (Reynolds et al. 2005).
By the government’s own reckoning,
only one or two fishers are economically dependent on porbeagle. Under
a worst-case scenario, listing might
have led to a loss of eight jobs and
an economic reduction of 2% to a
single community (DFO 2006). We
interpret the government’s decision
not to add the endangered porbeagle to the legal list, despite the minimal economic losses that might ensue, to reflect an implicit policy not
to list any marine fish perceived to
Mooers et al.
be of economic value, no matter how
small.
Conclusion
Canada’s Species at Risk Act is a direct response to the international endeavor to better steward natural resources. Nevertheless, if an imperiled species is not listed by the federal government, any debate on the
costs and benefits of changing its trajectory to potential extinction may
only take place in the narrow context
of in-house analyses conducted under
the purview of a financial regulatory
act. We document here a pattern consistent with bias against marine and
northern species in legal listing. In
June 2008 a parliamentary review of
the act must take place (SARA, section 129). The biases we have identified should be given due scrutiny at
that time. Biodiversity conservation
would be best served by strict, transparent, legislated timelines for all aspects of the listing process following
receipt by the Minister of the Environment of the status assessments undertaken by COSEWIC. We also recommend that, within the RIAS framework, SARA require that the full costs
of extinction and the full benefits of
recovery be quantified in externally
reviewed reports so that they can be
fairly weighed against the impacts of
legal protection.
Acknowledgments
We thank S. Elgie and G.G.E. Scudder for past discussions on endangered species legislation and S. Otto,
I. Rounthwaite, and three anonymous
reviewers for commenting on previous versions of this manuscript. We
are supported in our research by
NSERC Canada (A.O.M., M.F.-B., J.H.)
and Environment Canada (L.P.).
Supplementary Material
The listing fates of imperiled species
presented to the Canadian Government from 2004 through 2006 are
Biases in Legal Listing
available in conjunction with the
on line version of this article from
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com
(Appendix S1).
A.Ø. Mooers,∗† L.R. Prugh,‡ M.
Festa-Bianchet,§ and J.A. Hutchings∗∗
∗ Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6; email
[email protected]
† Institute for Advanced Study, Berlin, Germany
‡ University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada
§ Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, PQ,
Canada
∗∗ Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Literature Cited
Balmford, A. et al. 2002. Economic reasons for
conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–
953.
Bourdages, H., V. Lesage, M. O. Hammill, and
B. de March. 2002. Impact of harvesting on
population trends of beluga in eastern Hudson Bay. Research document 2002/036. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Ottawa.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity).
1992. The convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the CBD, U. N. Environment Programme, Montreal. Available from
www.biodiv.org/convention/convention.
shtml (accessed July 2006)
CEC (Commission For Environmental Cooperation). 2001. The North American mosaic:
a state of the environment report. CEC,
Montreal.
COSEWIC (Commitee on the Status of Wildlife
in Canada). 2004a. COSEWIC’s assessment
process and criteria. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. Available from www.cosewic.gc.ca/
pdf/assessment process e.pdf (accessed
Jaunuary 2007).
COSEWIC (Commitee on the Status of Wildlife
in Canada). 2004b. COSEWIC assessment
and update status report on the green
sturgeon Acipenser medirostris in Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.
COSEWIC (Commitee on the Status of Wildlife
in Canada). 2004c. COSEWIC assessment
and status report on the porbegale shark
Lamna nasus in Canada. Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, Ottawa.
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans).
2006. Potential socio-economic implications of adding porbeagle shark to the list of
wildlife species at risk in the Species at Risk
Act (SARA). Policy and Economics Branch,
Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, Dartmouth, Canada. Avail-
575
able from www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/speciesespeces/porbeagle/index e.htm (accessed
June 2006).
EARG (Evaluation, Audit and Review Group).
1997. Regulatory reform through regulatory impact analysis: the Canadian experience. Managing better, number 14. Evaluation, Audit and Review Group, Public Affairs Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Ottawa. Available from www.tbssct.gc.ca/pubs pol/dcgpubs/manbetseries/
VOL14-1 e.asp (accessed July 2006).
ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973).
2004. U.S. Code16, chap. 35. Available
from www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.html
(accessed July 2006).
Froese, R., and D. Pauly, editors, 2006. FishBase. Version 05/2006. Available from
www.fishbase.org (accessed May 2006).
Government of Canada. 2003. Species At
Risk Act, a guide. Government of Canada,
Ottawa. Available from www.sararegistry.
gc.ca/the act/SARA guide oct03 e.pdf (accessed January 2007).
Government of Canada. 2006. Order amending schedules 1 to 3 to the Species At Risk
Act. Canada Gazette 140 (18). Available
from
canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2006/
20060906/html/sor189-e.html (accessed
September 2006).
Hutchings, J. A., and J. D. Reynolds. 2004.
Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recovery and extinction risk.
BioScience 54:297–309.
Male, T. D., and M. J. Bean. 2005. Measuring
progress in U.S. endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8:986–992.
PCO (Privy Council Office). 1999. Government of Canada regulatory policy. Available from www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/raoics-srdc/
default.asp?Language=E&Page=Publications
&Sub=GovernmentofCanadaRegula (accessed September 2006).
Reynolds, J. D., N. K. Dulvy, N. B. Goodwin,
and J. A. Hutchings. 2005. Biology of extinction risk in marine fishes. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London (B) 272:2337–
2344.
SARA (Species At Risk Act). 2002. Bill C-5, An
act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada. Available from
www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/
house/bills/government/C-5/C-5 4/C5TOCE.html (accessed January 2007).
Tisdell, C., C. Wilson, and H. S. Nantha. 2005.
Policies for saving a rare Australian glider:
economics and ecology. Biological Conservation 123:237–248.
VanderZwaag, D. L., and J. A. Hutchings. 2005.
Canada’s marine species at risk: science
and law at the helm, but a sea of uncertainty. Ocean Development and International Law 36:219–259.
Woinarski, J. C. Z., and A. Fisher. 1999. The
Australian Endangered Species Protection
Act 1992. Conservation Biology 13:959–
962.
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 3, June 2007
CANADA’S SPECIES AT RISK ACT:
IMPLEMENTATION
AT A
SNAIL’S PACE
APRIL 2009
THE BANFF SPRINGS SNAIL IS A TINY MOLLUSC FOUND ONLY IN HOT SPRINGS
protected within Banff National Park. It has the dubious distinction of being the only species
in Canada for which the six-year-old Species at Risk Act (SARA) has been fully implemented.
SARA was enacted in 2002 to prevent Canadian wildlife and plants from becoming extinct
or extirpated and to provide for their recovery.1 There are three federal authorities responsible
for implementing the Act: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Parks
Canada Agency.
A mandatory five-year review of the Act’s effectiveness has been initiated by Parliament.
Four of Canada’s leading not for-profit environmental organizations working to protect Canada’s
biodiversity -- the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, and Nature
Canada -- have collaborated to highlight the major shortcomings of the Act and to grade
its implementation.
Our analysis examines each major stage of species protection, according to the elements set
out in the Act itself: Listing, Recovery Strategies, Action Planning, Habitat Protection, and
the Safety Net.
The Banff Spring Snail
Photo Credit: © Mark and Leslie Degner / www.markandlesliedegner.com
LISTING – In order for the Act to apply to a species, it must first be listed for protection. This involves a two-step process.
First, a species must be assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), an independent
scientific body that assesses the status of species and designates them as extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern,
or not at risk. Second, for a species designated in one of the “at risk” categories, the federal government must decide whether
to add it to the formal list under SARA. If it does not decide within nine months, the Minister of Environment must list it.
In practice, however, the government has failed to meet this nine-month timeline. Although there is no provision for it in the Act,
the government has created an “extended listing process” that has resulted in limbo for many species. At least 53 species at
risk are likely continuing to decline while government takes between 17 and 29 months (i.e. two to three times longer than
what is legally allowable) to determine whether or not to add them to the list, and for some species the delays are indefinite. Such
delays can jeopardize the recovery of a species that is already on the brink of extinction.
In addition, there appears a clear bias against listing certain kinds of
species. Overall, COSEWIC has assessed 551 species as extirpated,
endangered, threatened, or special concern. The number of species listed
under SARA is 449. Chances of eventual listing have been fairly good for
most species - with the exception of species found in the oceans or in
northern Canada. Since 2004, only 35% of marine fish assessed by
COSEWIC as “at risk” have been added to the list and no marine fish have
been listed as endangered or threatened, which would automatically grant
them protection against harm. Ten of the 23 species whose listing has
been outright rejected are found in the north.2
k
RECOVERY STRATEGIES – The primary cause
of decline for 84% of species at risk in Canada is habitat loss.4 In
order to maintain, protect and restore the habitat that is needed by
a species, that habitat must first be identified. The Act requires that
critical habitat — the habitat needed by a species to survive or recover
— must be identified, to the extent possible based on the best available
information, in a recovery strategy under SARA.
PEARY CARIBOU
Peary caribou, found only in Canada’s Arctic,
have undergone a precipitous decline of
approximately 80% since the 1980s. They
are threatened by climate change and the
potential for industrial development in their
habitat.3 COSEWIC assessed the Peary caribou as endangered in May 2004, yet in July
2005, the government decided not to list the
species and instead put it into an “extended
consultation” limbo. A listing decision on
Peary caribou is still pending.
Peary Caribou Source: istockphoto.com
However, not only have recovery strategies often failed to identify critical
habitat when it was possible to do so, the majority of recovery strategies
have been delayed, ignoring legal timelines. Recovery strategies are
due for 282 species, but have only been completed for 99 species.
And out of those recovery strategies that have been released, only 21%
identify at least some part of the species’ critical habitat.5
k
BOREAL WOODLAND CARIBOU
The government recently engaged a team of
18 independent scientists, supported by
additional experts and a management team at
Environment Canada, to develop a scientific
review for the identification of critical habitat
for the boreal population of woodland caribou.
In April, a robust, science-based review was
released that recommended critical habitat
for the caribou. The science in this report should
provide government, industry and conservationists with the tools needed to ensure the
persistence of boreal woodland caribou
populations in Canada.
ACTION PLANNING – Action plans are where decisions are made about the most cost-effective means for achieving
recovery of a species, based on the recovery strategy. Unfortunately,
as the Act is written, there is no legal deadline for the completion of
action plans. Although recovery strategies must identify a timeline for
action planning, these timelines are not legally binding and most are
not met. Thirteen action plans are past the timelines promised in the
corresponding recovery strategies.
The development of an action plan is especially important in those
cases where the recovery strategy did not identify any critical habitat.
However, of the 78 species for which final recovery strategies failed to
identify critical habitat, none has a completed action plan. To date, in
fact, there is only one completed action plan: for the Banff Springs snail,
a species located entirely within a National Park.
k
Boreal Woodland Caribou Photo credit: Bruce Petersen /
Ontario Nature
KIDNEYSHELL
HABITAT PROTECTION – The ultimate measure
of the effectiveness of SARA for most species is whether the habitat
that the species needs to survive and recover is actually being protected
on the ground. Once critical habitat is identified in a recovery strategy
or action plan, the Minister must determine whether that habitat is protected. If it isn’t, the Minister must order its protection if it is on federal
lands or waters, and in any case must report on it and on the steps taken
to protect it.
Of the 21 species that have had critical habitat identified to date, in
only two cases has SARA been used to protect critical habitat that
wasn’t already in a federal protected area. And these two, the northern
and southern resident killer whales, only received this protection as
a result of legal action taken by the environmental community. Further,
despite the Minister’s obligation to do so, no reports on steps taken
to protect critical habitat have been issued.
The kidneyshell is a freshwater mussel that
had a historic range throughout south-western
Ontario. Its range has been severely reduced.
The federal recovery strategy for the kidneyshell
failed to identify the kidneyshell’s critical
habitat. This means the habitat this species
requires to survive is not protected under SARA.
However, recovery and survival habitat for the
kidneyshell were identified in a separate provincial recovery strategy for the Ausable River.
Despite referencing the provincial recovery
strategy, the kidneyshell recovery strategy
ignores its results!
k
Kidneyshell Mussel Source: Darby Creek Association /
www.darbycreeks.org
SAFETY NET –
As the national law to protect species, one
would think that SARA covers all of Canada. In fact, however, habitat
protection is mandatory only for aquatic species and on federal lands
(such as post offices, military bases and much of the Territories).
This is unfortunate, as species do not recognize political boundaries.
However, the Act is equipped with what is called a “safety net” that
allows the federal government to order SARA’s protections to apply
to other species on other lands. SARA requires the Minister to recommend such an order to protect a species and/or the habitat upon which
it depends if he or she is of the opinion that a province is failing to
effectively do so. To date however, despite the fact that several provinces
don’t even have species at risk legislation, no Minister has ever made
such a recommendation, and the government has never passed such
an order.
SPOTTED OWL
The spotted owl is a perfect example of an
instance in which the safety net should have
been applied. In 2004, conservation organizations submitted a legal petition asking the
Minister of Environment to employ the safety
net to prevent the northern spotted owl from
going extinct in Canada. At the time, there were
less than 20 spotted owls documented in the
wild. However, the Minister was of the opinion
that the species did not face an immediate
threat to its survival despite ongoing logging
pressures in its habitat; the government failed
to intervene and now the spotted owl is being
extirpated in the wild. Most recently, only seven
northern spotted owls have been counted in
the wild.
k
CONCLUSION – The shortcomings of SARA’s implementation highlighted in this report are directly impacting species at risk
in Canada. Discouragingly, after six years of SARA implementation,
only two species have had critical habitat protected outside of existing
protected areas, and these only in response to a court case! In the
absence of habitat protection for at-risk species, habitat degradation
continues and we can expect Canadian species to continue to decline.
As it stands now, the implementation of SARA is failing at its key
goals of providing for the survival and recovery of species at risk and
the protection of their critical habitat. The five-year review creates an
opportunity for government to change its ways and to start effectively
harnessing the Act’s potential to protect species and their habitats.
Government must take strong actions to ensure that our imperilled
species are given a fighting chance at survival and to truly facilitate
species recovery.
k
Northern Spotted Owl Photo Sharon Toochin
ENDNOTES
1
Species at Risk Act preamble.
2
See Mooers, A. O., L. R. Prugh, M. Fest-Bianchet
and J. A. Hutchings. 2997. Biases in legal listing
under Canadian Endangered Species Legislation.
Conservation Biology 21(3): 572-575.
3
COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and
update status report on the Peary caribou Rangifer
tarandus pearyi and the barren-ground caribou Rangifer
tarandus groenlandicus (Dolphin and Union population)
in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, pp. 46 and 54.
4
Venter, O., N. N. Brodeur, L. Nemiroff, B. Belland,
I. J. Dolinsek and J. W. A. Grant. 2006. Threats to
endangered species in Canada. Bioscience 56(11):
903 – 910.
COVER PHOTOGRAPH of the
BANFF SPRINGS SNAIL:
Photo Credit: © Mark and Leslie Degner /
www.markandlesliedegner.com
5
See Status Report of the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development to the
House of Commons, March 2008.
Mooers, A.O., Prugh, L.R., Festa-Bianchet, M. and Hutchings, J.A. 2007. Biases in legal listing under
Canadian Endangered Species Legislation. Conservation Biology. 21(3): 572-575.
-
-
-
Harvested fish and mammals much less likely to be listed under SARA than non-harvested ones
(5 out of 29 versus 27 out of 29).
“Marine species were almost always denied listing”
Two possible reasons why species are not listed:
o Reluctance by wildlife management boards and DFO to accept additional stewardship
responsibilities required by SARA
o Deficiencies in the cost-benefit analyses that precede the legal listing decisions
“Species are most likely not listed because current benefits of status quo activities e.g. fishing
are quantified as a matter of course, whereas the benefits of recovery are not. The single marine
fish that was listed, the green sturgeon, has a “disagreeable taste” and is not fished
commercially. Of the freshwater fish proposed for listing by COSEWIC, only the white sturgeon
has substantial commercial value and the government chose to exclude populations valuable to
sports fishers from protection under SARA”
“We document here a pattern consistent with bias against marine and northern species in legal
listing”.
Canada’s Species at Risk Act: Implementation at a snail’s pace. 2009.
-
If species is at risk under COSEWIC, federal government must decide within 9 months whether
to list in SARA. If no decision, then automatically has to bel isted.
Government does not meet 9 month timelines as government has created extended listing
process.
Government takes 17-29 months to determine whether or not to list
For some species, listing delay is indefinite
Since 2004, only 35% of marine fish assessed by COSEWIC as “at risk” have been added to the
list and no marine fish have been listed as endangered or threatened, which would
automatically grant them protection against harm.
Hutchings, J.A. and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2009. Canadian species at risk (2006-2008) with particular
emphasis on fishes. Environ. Rev. 17: 53-65.
-
-
Since proclamation of SARA, fishes have represented the taxonomic group least likely to be
included on Canada’s legal list of species at risk
Canadian government has yet to list any of the endangered or threatened marine fishes
assessed as being at risk since the passage of SARA
“The primary reason for not listing threatened and endangered marine fishes would appear to
be based on the perception that the short-term socioeconomic costs to cusiness, industry, and
consumers of listing exceed the longer-term socioeconomic benefits of listing”
Unexpected and unfortunate weakness of SARA: the ability of the federal government to
postpone almost indefinitely listing decisions
Druce, C.D. 2012. Assessing the viability of the Species At Risk Act in managing commercial
exploitation and recovery of threatened and endangered marine fish in Canada.
-
-
A total of five marine fish are currently listed under SARA as threatened or endangered, three of
which were automatically listed when SARA was proclaimed in 2003 (Government of Canada, No
Date (a)). Since SARA’s proclamation, 11 of the 13 marine fish that COSEWIC has assessed as
threatened or endangered have been declined for SARA listing (Table 1) (Government of
Canada, No Date (a)). For all of these species declined for listing, potential negative socioeconomic impacts resulting from the automatic application of SARA’s general prohibitions were
cited as a primary reason for denying listing (Government of Canada, 2005; 2006a; 2006b; 2010;
2011). These 11 non-listed species remain under the purview of the Fisheries Act (RSC 1985, cF14), the primary legislative tool DFO uses to manage and regulate commercial fishing activity.
Both Mooers et al. (2009) and Findlay et al. (2009) have criticized SARA listing trends, suggesting
that the federal government is inappropriately prioritizing socio-economic considerations over
ecological concerns in denying listing specifically to species of commercial importance.