The Endangered Species Act …

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a critically important piece of legislature, recognizing the value of species diversity and ecosystem integrity. A significant amount of time, effort and expert knowledge went into creating the legislature, and little to no changes are required to the laws themselves in order for the government and the province to see positive effects for both the environment and our population. Below are several comments on the proposed changes stemming for the ESA Review from the perspective of career professional with post-graduate education in ecology, as well as a member of the community from a farming background.
1) The law should NOT be changed to allow ministerial discretion in the listing and classification process. Science-based species listing is a critical component of the evidence-based ESA system, that is stronger for not being subject to short-term political pressures. Alternatively, efforts could be focused on improved communication of upcoming and current listings through multiple channels to potentially interested or affected parties. This would minimize any perceived negative impacts and provide more time for accommodating action.
2) The existing timelines for providing response statements and reports on progress are reasonable and important for transparency and accountability to government and policy makers, as well as tax payers and community members. This is important for encouraging effective and efficient use of time and resources to achieve the goals of species and habitat protection. Furthermore, timely reports on effectiveness of the implemented changes allow for adjustments if changes are not effective. There are already options in place for circumstances when longer periods are necessary.
3) The most important feature of the ESA that needs to be maintained is the regulatory framework and authorization process. The entire point of the ESA is to protect species and their habitat – and this can most effectively be done by preventing future loss of habitat. Intact wildlife habitat provides many ecosystem services beyond the habitat for the respective species at risk. For example, wetlands, streams and healthy riparian zones reduce flooding risk and intensity, maintain water flow during dry periods, remove excess nutrients and harmful pollutants from water, the vegetation contributes to cleaner air, in addition to the socioeconomic benefits we enjoy from experiencing these environments. There are numerous examples from Canada and around the world demonstrating: large economic costs associated with the destruction of these types of environments due to loss of these ecosystem functions, and the costs and challenges associated with trying to rebuild or restore these systems. The most effective strategy is protecting and maintaining these habitats in the first place.
There should be NO changes to the law making applications and approval of permits easier.
Implementation of habitat protection on land that is already privately owned could be improved, with incentives and long-term planning to protect essential habitat in such a way that farmers are not negatively impacted in the short term.

The beauty and diversity of the natural environment have been described as an identifying feature and source of pride for Canadians. Citizens care about the protection of our natural environment, both for it’s own sake and because of the numerous health benefits it provides in the form of numerous and varied ecosystem services.