OVERALL, There is a…

OVERALL, There is a fundamental difference between revising the law and improving its implementation. To improve outcomes for species at risk we need to improve ESA implementation not weaken the law.

LANDSCAPE APPROACHES:

Regarding landscape planning, the ESA already provides for this. No change to the law is needed
With regard to authorizing harmful activities at a broad scale, such an approach is inappropriate for endangered and threatened species. It doesn’t lend itself to addressing site-specific or species specific concerns and consequently presents unwarranted additional risk for species already in peril.

LISTING PROCESSES AND PROTECTIONS:

The ESA already allows the Minister to request a review of a COSSARO decision if “credible scientific information” indicates the listing is not appropriate (sec. 8(2)). Changing the law to allow ministerial discretion about automatic protections will politicize the process, fuel controversy and weaken protections for species at risk. The ESA already provides more than enough flexibility through permits and exemptions.
Science-based listing and automatic protections provide certainty.
Improving notification is an implementation issue which should be addressed through better communications

RECOVERY POLICIES AND HABITAT REGULATIONS:

There should be no change to the legal requirement to produce Government Response Statements (GRS) within nine months of the release of Recovery Strategies (sec. 11(8)). Failure to meet the legislated deadline is an implementation issue.
The required five-year reporting on progress is reasonable and ensures transparency and accountability. It provides an impetus for action, ensuring that effectiveness is assessed, and contributes to institutional learning and adaptive management. In fact, the government should legislate additional reporting requirements (e.g., every five years) to drive ongoing action and monitoring beyond the first five years.
There should be no changes to the legal provisions for habitat regulations, which describe specific boundaries or features of areas deemed to be habitat and provide enhanced certainty for ESA implementation and enforcement.

AUTHORIZATION PROCESS:
Proponents of harmful activities should NOT be allowed to simply pay into a conservation fund - an easy way out that reduces accountability and facilitates harm to species at risk and their habitats. Retain the current requirements to provide an on-the-ground, overall benefit to species harmed.
Strengthen protections for species at risk by repealing the sweeping exemptions for industry and development (forestry, hydro, mining, aggregate extraction, and more) approved by Cabinet in 2013. The 2013 exemptions have become the primary means for allowing harmful activities to proceed. As of October 11, 2017, there had been 2,065 registrations for exemptions and about 85 percent of these were for activities that violate ESA protections for species at risk and their habitats
There are already sufficient authorization tools. No new tools are needed. Challenges should be addressed through improved implementation.