I am opposed to any changes…

I am opposed to any changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that would reduce protection for Species at Risk (SAR).

It is difficult to take this discussion paper seriously, as it so clearly has such a strong ideological slant towards easing the Act in favour of development. One might think that this is paper was actually written by a pro-development lobby group, rather than our own government. Of the 12 ‘challenges’ listed, 4 (30%) refer to making things easier for applicants. Of the 14 ‘discussion questions’, 7 (50%) are framed around improving conditions for economic development. The ‘discussion questions’ are written in a leading way, laced throughout with pro-development opinions that have nothing to do with the actual intent of the ESA: to protect SAR. I will speak to each of the four focus areas outlined in the discussion paper, in the following paragraphs.

1. Landscape Approaches:

The very first ‘challenge’ listed in the discussion paper insinuates that the ESA is limiting “the ability to achieve positive outcomes for species at risk”. The following discussion questions suggest that we might improve this situation by swapping out case-by-case studies with a landscape approach. Landscape habitat analysis and species tracking are useful tools, which are already widely used – this is not a new suggestion. However, these cannot in any way replace site-specific surveys. Part of what makes many SAR rare in the first place is a dependence on uncommon habitats or site conditions. Even those that require large tracts of habitat on a landscape level can also have site-specific requirements to support critical life processes such as breeding and overwintering. I am opposed to the idea of swapping out site-specific surveys for SAR and their habitat with a landscape scale analysis; both landscape scale analysis and site-specific analysis are needed.

2. Listing Process and Protections for SAR:

Species are listed as SAR following thorough research, which is made extremely transparent and publicly available in the form of species-specific Recovery Strategy documents, Government Response Statements, and General Habitat Descriptions, all of which are easily accessible on the SARO website. The suggestion that more public notice is needed prior to species listing seems not to benefit the species’ in question. What benefit would increased timelines provide to SAR? If a species has been designated a SAR, it is in danger and protection is needed; in some cases a rapid response may be necessary. It is already not uncommon to find developers filling in wetlands, felling butternut, and trampling habitat of other species prior to proper site-surveys and/or prior to obtaining permits; providing more advance notice prior to listing would, quite frankly, just allow businesses or people with conflicts more time to conveniently erase those conflicts without fearing legal consequence. I’m not against a certain amount of “grandfathering” for projects that are near completion (although I still believe these should be reviewed and that ways to minimize impact should be incorporated), but a broad blanket policy to delay listing would not be an improvement to the ESA.

3. Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations

One of the highlighted purposes on page 2 of this paper is to streamline processes, yet focus areas 2 and 3 focus almost entirely on slowing the whole process down, to the benefit of big businesses, and the detriment of SAR. The fact that the government is having trouble meeting their own timelines on SAR matters should possibly indicate the need for increased staffing, rather than a rationale for slowing the whole process down even further. It is especially irritating that in the first discussion question listed on page 5 the example provided suggests that there may be some situations where slowed timelines are ”needed” because additional engagement is required with businesses and landowners (in addition to other groups, who might actually have valuable input). The opinions of businesses and landowners should have nothing to do with how SAR are designated or how the government treats listed SAR.

4. Authorization Process

The second ‘challenge’ listed on page 7 of the discussion paper states that the requirements to obtain an authorization can be extensive, creating barriers to economic development. This is completely true, and completely necessary. The purpose of the ESA, as stated on page 2 of the discussion paper, is that it “provides stringent protections for species at risk”. The purpose of the ESA is not to protect, coddle, or save money for developers. The purpose of the ESA is to protect SAR. Making changes to the protection of SAR in order to speed things up for the sake of development would be a disgrace. Many would argue that the ESA already contains too many loopholes and exemptions. Please do not muddy the waters any further with “efficiencies” that might save someone a few dollars or a bit of time in exchange for our biodiversity and the health of our planet.

I am opposed to any changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that would reduce protection for Species at Risk (SAR).